A Tennessee family has regained access to a shared driveway after a neighbour built a fence through it, blocking their use of part of the driveway. However, their separate lawsuit against the city that approved the fence permit has ended in a defeat, with a federal judge ruling that issuing the permit did not amount to a government taking of their property.
According to the ruling, Mark McDonald, Nanette McDonald and their daughter Madeleine McDonald own a property in the City of Oak Hill in Davidson County, Tennessee. Their daughter lives in the house, which was built in 1965. The neighbouring property belonged to Mary Rust, whose house was built in the 1950s. Both properties had used a common driveway since the houses were built. The arrangement was based on reciprocal easements, which allowed the owners of each property to use the portion of the driveway located on the neighbouring land.
The dispute began after Rust sought to make improvements to her property. According to the family's complaint, she learnt that the city's rules for calculating plot sizes excluded land covered by an easement. This meant she could not make certain improvements while the driveway easement remained in place. Rust asked the McDonalds to sign an agreement ending the easement, but they refused. She then approached the city in July 2024 to enquire about building a fence along the property boundary, which ran through the middle of the shared driveway.
A city code enforcement officer told Rust that she needed a building permit to construct the fence. The city's zoning rules also required applicants to submit a site plan showing the property's boundaries, easements and other details. The family said the city also required a stamped survey showing property lines and easements. Initially, the code enforcement officer told Rust that she could not get permission to build the fence through the driveway if the portion on her property was covered by an easement. However, Rust later submitted a Deed of Correction signed by the previous owners of her property. The document, dated October 29, 2024, stated that a joint driveway agreement recorded in 1992 was not an easement and was not intended to remain binding on future owners. Rust told the city that the document had removed references to the easement from her deed and effectively ended the arrangement. According to the McDonalds, the city attorney accepted this explanation and concluded that the document was sufficient to remove the easement. The family maintained that the city knew they disagreed and continued to assert their rights over the driveway. Despite the dispute, the city approved Rust's application and issued a building permit on November 21, 2024. Rust then constructed the fence down the middle of the driveway, preventing the family from using the portion covered by their easement. The McDonalds maintained that the easement could not be ended without their consent. They also argued that the 1992 agreement had created a valid property right that continued to apply even after the neighbouring property changed hands.
The family first challenged the fence through legal action against Rust. On December 6, 2024, they filed a case in the Davidson County Chancery Court. They sought a declaration confirming their rights over the driveway, along with damages for defamation of title, interference with the easement and trespass. They also appealed the city's decision to issue the building permit before the Board of Zoning Appeals. However, the board said it did not have the expertise or authority to decide disputes over private property rights. In September 2025, the family and Rust reached an agreed order in the state court case. The order confirmed the validity of the driveway easement, nullified the Deed of Correction and required Rust to remove the fence. This restored the family's legal access to the portion of the driveway on Rust's property. The two sides later settled the family's claims for damages in June 2026. However, the family continued its legal fight against the City of Oak Hill. They argued that the city's decision to approve the fence permit had effectively taken away their property rights.
The McDonalds filed a separate lawsuit against the city, arguing that issuing the permit amounted to an unlawful taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution. They also accused the city of failing to train its code enforcement officials properly and of following a policy that favoured issuing permits over protecting existing property rights. The family argued that the city should have refused the permit until the dispute over the easement was resolved. They said allowing Rust to build the fence had deprived them of access to a property right they legally held.
The city disputed the claim. It argued that issuing a building permit did not amount to a decision on who owned the disputed property or whether the easement was valid. In a memorandum filed on November 5, US District Judge Aleta A Trauger agreed with the city. The judge acknowledged that the family had a valid property interest in the driveway easement when the permit was issued. However, she said the key question was whether the city's decision to grant the permit itself amounted to a taking. The court found that it did not. It said the permit only authorised Rust to build a fence and did not establish that she had the legal right to build it on land covered by the family's easement. The judge said the city had not attempted to settle the property dispute or terminate the easement through the permit. Instead, Rust's decision to construct the fence had interfered with the family's property rights. The memorandum stated that Rust's actions, rather than the city's issuance of the building permit, had caused the family's loss of access. The judge also explained that a building permit does not give a person the right to construct something on another person's property without obtaining the necessary permission. Even if the city had been negligent in issuing the permit before the easement dispute was settled, that alone did not establish a constitutional violation, the court said. The judge therefore granted the city's motion for judgment on the pleadings and rejected the family's request for partial judgment. The court dismissed the case in its entirety.
