Clark v. Hargrave, 2531

• Decision Date: 08 July 1996
• Docket Number: No. 2531,2531
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Sandy CLARK, Appellant, v. Esther HARGRAVE, Holly Hall Associates Limited Partnership, Ashdale Homeowners and Landowners Association, William R. Warren, Judith C. Warren, Lawrence R. Coleman, Priscilla M. Coleman, William R. Hall, Cheryl M. Hall, Alfred P. Jenkins, Walter Thomas, Jean Brown, Charlene J. Munigualt (as Trustee of the Heirs of Sharper Gadsten); and also, the unknown adult heirs of the following deceased individuals: Maria Bailey, Russell Bailey, Realuia Bailey, Bero Bridget, and June Gadston, Defendants, of whom Holly Hall Associates Limited Partnership, is the Respondent.

Page 474

473 S.E.2d 474

323 S.C. 84

Sandy CLARK, Appellant, v. Esther HARGRAVE, Holly Hall Associates Limited Partnership,

Ashdale Homeowners and Landowners Association, William R.

Warren, Judith C. Warren, Lawrence R. Coleman, Priscilla M.

Coleman, William R. Hall, Cheryl M. Hall, Alfred P. Jenkins,

Walter Thomas, Jean Brown, Charlene J. Munigualt (as Trustee

of the Heirs of Sharper Gadsten); and also, the unknown

adult heirs of the following deceased individuals: Maria

Bailey, Russell Bailey, Realuia Bailey, Bero Bridget, and

June Gadston, Defendants,

of whom Holly Hall Associates Limited Partnership, is the Respondent.

No. 2531.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Submitted May 7, 1996.

Decided July 8, 1996.

Cornelius J. Riley; and Gary D. Brown, Ridgeland, for appellant.

Thomas C. Davis and John M. Tatum, III, Beaufort, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

In this action to determine title to an 8.1 acre tract of real property, Sandy Clark appeals the order of the master-in-equity finding Dr. Bruce G. Pratt (Pratt) adversely possessed the property and finding Holly Hall Limited Partnership (Holly Hall) possessed fee simple title to the property. We affirm. ¹

Sandy Clark commenced this action to determine title to two tracts of real property, including an 8.1 acre tract of wooded and unimproved land located on Lady's Island in Beaufort County, South Carolina (Lot 36). ² Clark alleged he and Esther Hargrave each held an interest in the land based on an unbroken chain of title. Clark requested the court divide the property in kind and grant him fee simple title to his share of the land.

Holly Hall answered and counterclaimed alleging it held fee simple title to Lot 36. Specifically, Holly Hall claimed Pratt acquired title to Lot 36 by way of a deed from Rosa Fields dated July 21, 1960. Holly Hall further alleged Pratt entered the property under claim of right in July of 1960 and remained in continuous possession until he conveyed his interest to Holly Hall by way of a deed dated January 23, 1992. Holly Hall asserted Pratt adversely possessed the property from 1960 to 1992.

The case was referred to the master for final judgment with direct appeal to the Supreme Court. By order dated April 16, 1993, the master found Pratt had adversely possessed Lot 36 for a period in excess of thirty years. Based on this finding, the master concluded Holly Hall possessed fee simple title to Lot 36. Clark appeals.

Standard Of Review

In his order, the master states Clark sought to quiet title to the property. Normally, such an action would be one in equity. See Van Every v. Chinquapin Hollow, Inc., 265 S.C. 474, 219 S.E.2d 909 (1975). However, the character, as legal or equitable, of an action is determined by the complaint in its main purpose, the nature of the issues as raised by the pleadings or the pleadings and proof, and the character of the relief sought under them. Insurance Fin. Serv., Inc. v. South Carolina Ins. Co., 271 S.C. 289, 247 S.E.2d 315 (1978); Bell v. Mackey, 191 S.C. 105, 3 S.E.2d 816 (1939).

Clark alleged in his Complaint that Maria Bailey and her predecessors in title entered the property under color of title by deed dated April 7, 1951, and have since been in continuous , hostile, open, actual, notorious, uninterrupted and exclusive possession. Clark further asserted he is entitled to have the cloud on the title removed and to receive fee simple title to his share of the property. Holly Hall, in its Answer and Counterclaim, asserted it possessed fee simple title to the subject property, and asserted adverse possession as an affirmative defense.

The determination of title to real property is legal in nature. Wigfall v. Fobbs, 295 S.C. 59, 367 S.E.2d 156 (1988). In addition, an adverse possession claim is an action at law. Miller v. Leaird, 307 S.C. 56, 413 S.E.2d 841 (1992). Because this action primarily involves the determination of title to real estate based on adverse possession, we hold it should be characterized as an action at law. In an action at law, referred to the master for final judgment with direct appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellate court's review is limited to the correction of any error of law; it must affirm the master's factual findings unless there is no evidence that reasonably supports those findings. Jefferies v. Phillips Constr. Co., 316 S.C. 523, 451 S.E.2d 21 (Ct.App.1994).

I.

Clark asserts the master erred in finding Holly Hall's possession was open, notorious, hostile, and exclusive. We find no error.

It is axiomatic that a party claiming title by adverse possession must show the extent of his possession. Butler v. Lindsey, 293 S.C. 466, 361 S.E.2d 621 (Ct.App.1987). This requirement is not negated by the mere fact the adverse claimant enters under color of title. It is well settled that "[w]hile color of title draws the constructive possession of the whole premises to the actual possession of a part only, and is evidence of the extent of the possession claimed, it is not of itself evidence of adverse possession, and it does not follow that adverse possession can be proved by less evidence when the entry is under color of title than when it is not." Id. at 470, 361 S.E.2d at 623. Moreover, proof of title by adverse possession requires a showing by clear and convincing evidence of actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession by the claimant, or by one or more persons through whom he has claimed for the full statutory period. Miller, 307 S.C. at 61, 413 S.E.2d at 844. In South Carolina, the relevant statutory period is ten years. S.C.Code Ann. § 15-67-210 (1976). Adverse possession in the instant case was asserted as an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof was therefore upon Holly Hall. Miller, 307 S.C. at 61, 413 S.E.2d at 844.

Maria Bailey obtained Lot 36 by deed dated April 5, 1951, and died intestate. Clark presented evidence establishing that through this and two other intestacies, he and Esther Hargrave have possessed record title to Lot 36 since June 10, 1991. Clark testified his family members paid taxes on the property and produced evidence to that effect in the form of tax receipts. Cathy Aughtman, a title abstractor, testified Maria Bailey and her heirs had paid taxes on Lot 36 from 1936 to the date of the hearing. The parties stipulated Clark has the superior paper title.

Holly Hall presented evidence that Pratt adversely possessed Lot 36. Ladson Howell, an acquaintance of Pratt, testified that to his knowledge, Pratt had owned Lot 36 since 1968. He testified he was familiar with the land because he frequently hunted deer on the property. Howell testified there is a cable mounted between two trees which blocks access to the road leading onto the property. Howell stated that at a different point on the road, there are two additional gates with chains and locks which also block access to the property. He also stated there was a "No Trespassing" sign on one of the chains which has been removed on occasion, presumably by trespassers, and replaced. Howell stated that he was confident Pratt erected the cables and chains and they have been in place since at least 1968. According to Howell, he and others who wanted to hunt on Lot 36 had to ask Pratt for permission. Howell further testified Pratt has, since at least 1968, posted "No Trespassing" and "No Hunting" signs throughout the property.

Roxanna Roe Pratt, Pratt's daughter, testified the "No Hunting" and "No Trespassing" signs had been posted for at least 30 years. She testified a dirt road leading from the main roadway was the sole means of vehicular ingress and egress onto the 8.1 acre tract. Ms. Pratt also testified her father placed the cable and chains on the property to stop people from dumping trash, littering, and parking on the land.

Clyde Priester, who was familiar with the property for at least 34 years, testified there were three cables along the roadway leading into the property; the first at the entrance, the second halfway down the road, and the third further down the road. He testified Pratt instructed him to erect the cables because people were dumping trash and trespassing on the property. He further testified the cables had been in place for 15 or 20 years and blocked access to the land, although trespassers occasionally crossed the blockades. Priester testified people would ask his permission to open one of the gates to gain access to a cemetery located on the property. He further testified he posted "No Trespassing"...