Alford v. Cotton Row Hosp.

• Docket Number: 2022-CA-00125-COA
• Decision Date: 22 August 2023
• Parties: DAVID W. ALFORD APPELLANT/ CROSS-APPELLEE v. COTTON ROW HOSPITALITY, LLC APPELLEE/ CROSS-APPELLANT
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

1

DAVID W. ALFORD APPELLANT/ CROSS-APPELLEE
v.
COTTON ROW HOSPITALITY, LLC APPELLEE/ CROSS-APPELLANT

No. 2022-CA-00125-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

August 22, 2023

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/03/2022

COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: BOLIVAR COUNTY CHANCERY COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT TRIAL JUDGE: HON. CATHERINE FARRIS-CARTER

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: SHELDON G. ALSTON WARREN KENDRICK ROGERS JR. JACOB ARTHUR BRADLEY

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: WILLIAM JACOB LONG IV CHRISTOPHER DANIEL MEYER

BEFORE BARNES, C.J., WESTBROOKS AND McDONALD, JJ.

MCDONALD, J.

¶1. This adverse possession/prescriptive easement case involves a wall between two properties in downtown Cleveland, Mississippi. David Alford (David) sued Cotton Row Hospitality LLC (Cotton Row) in the Bolivar County Chancery Court to confirm title to the wall by adverse possession and/or establish a prescriptive easement for its use. After a trial,

2

the chancery court held, among other things, that David had valid claims of adverse possession and to a prescriptive-easement claim to half of the wall. But because Cotton Row owned the rest of the wall, the chancery court ordered David to pay Cotton Row for title to that half of the wall, and David would thereafter own the entire wall, i.e., with free and clear title. The chancery court also ordered David to either construct his own support system or reimburse Cotton Row for the value of its investment in stabilizing the wall.

¶2. Although David appeals from the chancery court's judgment, he does not dispute the chancery court's finding of his ownership to at least a portion of the wall by adverse possession and a prescriptive easement for its use. But David contends, among other things, that the chancery court erred by requiring him to pay Cotton Row for the remainder of the wall and Cotton Row's costs for constructing the support system (if he chose to accept the system rather than building his own). Cotton Row cross-appeals, claiming that David was barred from relief under the doctrine of unclean hands and that he had not proved the elements of adverse possession or prescriptive easement. After reviewing the record, the arguments of the parties, and the relevant caselaw, we affirm the chancery court's judgment in part and reverse, vacate, and render in part.

Facts

¶3. In the mid-1950s, Arnold and Jean Alford (the Alfords) rented a building in downtown Cleveland, Mississippi, from H. O. Solomon to operate a furniture store. On October 30, 1975, the Alfords purchased the property next door, south of the furniture store, from Automotive Parts Company, a Mississippi corporation. This property contained a

3

building, which the Alfords used as a frame shop, and two approximately eleven-foot-wide uncovered, non-public alleyways on each side. One alleyway separated the frame shop from the furniture store building. The furniture store building was located closer to the street, and the frame shop was set back a few feet.

1975 Enclosure of the Alleyway

¶4. In 1975, the Alfords enclosed the alleyway on the north side of the frame store that ran between the frame shop and the furniture store. They built walls on the back and front of the alleyway, attaching both to the walls of both buildings. They also extended the roof over the area, attaching it to the exterior side of the furniture shop's wall. This created 792 square feet of new interior space for the frame shop. The Alfords made a doorway from the furniture store into the alleyway area so they could go back and forth between the two buildings. They built shelves on both sides of the furniture shop wall-shelves for their use in the now-extended frame shop and shelves on the inside of the furniture shop. There was no proof in the record that Solomon, who owned the furniture store property, objected when the Alfords created this extension to the frame shop's building by using the exterior of the wall of the furniture shop. Nor was there any proof that Solomon had permitted this use either.

Transfer of Other Alleyway

¶5. On March 19, 1980, the Alfords conveyed the alleyway on the south end of the frame shop property to the City of Cleveland. The city anticipated building on the property, and in the deed, the Alfords agreed that the city could use the thirteen-inch masonry wall of the

4

frame shop to attach its new building. The deed specifically referred to this as a "party wall," and the city agreed to close in the existing windows and door on the wall and to move the electrical outlets and light fixtures on the interior side of the wall that the Alfords would use.

¶6. The Alfords continued to lease and operate the furniture store until 1981 when they sold the business. When the Alfords vacated the furniture building, they filled in the doorway between the alleyway/storage area of the frame shop and the furniture store building. At this point, the Alfords only owned the frame shop building, which included the area that had been enclosed by attaching a roof to the furniture store.

Sale of the Furniture Shop Property to the Perrys

¶7. On January 23, 1985, Solomon's widow and only heir sold the furniture store property to Billy and Mary Perry, who opened a pawn shop. Billy Perry testified that when they purchased the property, the Alfords had already enclosed the alleyway and had extended the roof, which was attached to the pawn shop wall. The Perrys never objected to the roof extension after they obtained title to the pawn shop. As he testified, "it was never discussed."

¶8. But the Perrys still considered the entire pawn shop building to be theirs, including the wall to which the Alfords had affixed the extended roof. The Perrys operated their business in the entire building and maintained the building, including the interior side of the wall. Perry testified that he had electricity wires along that wall, where he displayed his TVs. The Perrys also painted the exterior portion of the wall that jutted out to the street beyond the frame store and posted a sign identifying their pawn shop business. No one objected to the Perrys' use of the wall during the time that they owned the pawn shop from 1985 to 2017.

5

Moreover, the Perrys never sought or received permission from the Alfords to use the wall either. The record reflects that the Perrys and the Alfords operated peacefully with the buildings configured as they were.

¶9. In addition, it was clear to the public that the Alfords' roof was attached to the pawnshop building. John Valentine, a retired attorney who served as Cleveland's city attorney and a county and youth court judge, testified about this at trial. He said that sometime in the 1970s, the Chamber of Commerce and the City worked on a joint project to give the storefronts a facelift by requiring the owners to install awnings, canopies, and eaves. Valentine said that at that time and thereafter, it was clear to anyone walking down the street that the frame shop and pawn shop buildings were connected.

Transfer to David

¶10. After Jean and Arnold Alford passed away, on June 23, 2009, their children had the building appraised by Lucy Capocaccia. In her appraisal, she noted:

In addition to the main building structure, there is a narrow addition to the building on its north side, which measures approximately 11' x 72'. This is actually where the alley used to run between this property and the property north of it and was purchased by the property owner and enclosed. It is considered to be unfinished storage area.

Thereafter, three of the four Alford children deeded their interests in the frame shop property to their brother David, who had worked in the frame shop since 1993. By this conveyance, David became the sole owner of the frame shop property. After he became owner, David put another doorway into the frame shop's interior wall of the enclosed alleyway, so there were two entrances from the shop. He said he later made the alleyway area into a gallery with a

6

small stage.

Hotel Construction

¶11. In 2016, David learned that a group of investors had planned to build a hotel in the area. David attended several Cleveland Heritage Commission meetings and confirmed that Cotton Row was going to purchase the pawn shop property from the Perrys to construct the hotel. David began emailing Cotton Row executives asking what was going to happen with his alleyway roof when the pawnshop wall was taken down. He asked for compensation for the loss of his roof when what he referred to as the "common wall" between the two buildings would come down. David also contacted architects for the proposed hotel to discuss his "loss of the 800 feet in my alley." On February 12, 2017, Donald Alford (David's brother) wrote Cotton Row about the contemplated construction as well. Donald inquired if the plans provided adequate separation between the buildings for fire safety. He also asked how the wall would be stabilized before and after demolition.

¶12. On May 12, 2017, Cotton Row finalized its purchase of the pawn shop property from the Perry family. Cotton Row's title report and a survey of the property (completed by Robert Eley on May 25, 2017) showed no issues with the chain of title or boundaries. Eley found that no part of the pawnshop building encroached onto David's property.

¶13. Demolition of the pawnshop began in October 2017. Those doing the work alerted Clay Scruggs, one of Cotton Row's developers, that one of the walls of the pawnshop had the roof of the building next door attached to it. Scruggs stopped the demolition work and arranged to meet with David. In anticipation, David prepared a list of options for handling

7

the demolition of the wall. One included establishing the property line and retaining the wall with structural reinforcement. A second option involved demolishing the wall and building a new wall for the frame shop building with windows, doorways,...