Fiscal Court removes portion of Colony Branch Road from county road system after easement dispute

Morgan County Fiscal Court voted to remove a contested segment of Colony Branch Road from the county road system following extended discussion about a 1993 easement and objections from a nearby resident.

County officials and landowners debated whether a recorded easement granted in December 1993 gave the county a legal right of way to create and maintain the road. A county attorney said the 1993 document “gave the easement to the county for the specific purpose of making the county right,” but acknowledged the deed’s language is vague about exact alignment.

The dispute centered on how the recorded easement would be built on the ground and whether routing the road would send traffic and noise within a few feet of a homeowner’s bedroom window. A resident identified only as “Mr. Johnson” told the court the gate and obstructions have already blocked access: “When I bought the property, I was told that there was no easements, no nothing,” he said, describing how a gate and disconnected mail service affected his ability to sell the home.

The court’s legal adviser outlined two distinct issues: whether a county easement exists on record and whether the county should expend resources to convert an easement into a maintained county road. The attorney described options including leaving the road on the county system but not improving it, taking the road into the road system and improving it, or undoing a prior action. He said: “If you say you don’t want to do anything, then you could vote to remove it.”

After discussion, a magistrate moved to remove the portion of Colony Branch Road “from the split at Mr. Johnson’s house” out of the county system. The motion was seconded and carried; two abstentions were recorded. Court minutes show the easement itself will remain on record and was not vacated by the vote. The judge clarified the vote removes the county’s road-maintenance obligation but does not extinguish any recorded deed rights.

County officials said the legal record indicates an easement exists but that the precise location will need definition if future action is taken. The judge recommended any party who wishes additional access pursue circuit court remedies: “If Mr. Ratliff wants the easement, he’s going to have to fight for it,” the judge said during the discussion.

The court also discussed practical constraints: maintenance costs, risk of creating a “glorified driveway” serving a single household, and prior use by mail and county trucks. Officials noted that re-taking the road into the system later would be possible, but would require explaining the public benefit if the county spent funds to improve it.

Ending: The court left the recorded easement in place but removed the county’s road-maintenance obligation for the identified segment. County staff recommended a survey and title checks before any future reopening or capital work.