Amoorpour v. Kirkham

• Docket Number: 120181
• Decision Date: 19 December 2023
• Parties: MOHAMMAD AMOORPOUR and MARYAM AMNIFAR, TRUSTEES OF THE AMOORPOUR FAMILY TRUST, Appellees/Counter-Appellants, v. BRENDA J. KIRKHAM, an individual, Appellant/Counter-Appellee, and CARL KIRKHAM, an individual, Defendant, and ALEXANDER WELCHER, JR., an individual, JONATHAN A. WELCHER, an individual, JEANNIE WELCHER, an individual, GAYLE WELCHER, an individual, AMERICAN GUARANTY TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

2023 OK 120

MOHAMMAD AMOORPOUR and MARYAM AMNIFAR, TRUSTEES OF THE AMOORPOUR FAMILY TRUST, Appellees/Counter-Appellants,
v.
BRENDA J. KIRKHAM, an individual, Appellant/Counter-Appellee,

and CARL KIRKHAM, an individual, Defendant, and ALEXANDER WELCHER, JR., an individual, JONATHAN A. WELCHER, an individual, JEANNIE WELCHER, an individual, GAYLE WELCHER, an individual, AMERICAN GUARANTY TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.

No. 120181

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

December 19, 2023

THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MCCLAIN COUNTY, HONORABLE CHARLES GRAY, ASSOCIATE DISTRICT JUDGE.

James B. Blevins, George William Velotta, II, and Carrie Kopp, Blevins and Associates Law, PLLC, Purcell, Oklahoma, for Appellant Brenda Kirkham.

Christopher C. Lind and Lucas M. West, Nichols Dixon PLLC, Norman, Oklahoma, for Defendants Alexander Welcher, Jr., Jonathan A. Welcher, and Jeannie Welcher.

Brett Agree and Jacob Yturri, Garvin Agee Carlton, P.C., Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, for Appellee Mohammad Amoorpour.

John Mantooth, Purcell, Oklahoma, for Defendant Gayle Welcher.

WINCHESTER, J.

¶0 Appellees brought a claim against a neighboring landowner to quiet title. The neighboring landowner counterclaimed, alleging adverse possession. After a bench trial, the district court quieted title to Appellees. Appellees then moved for money damages for the rental value of the property and sought a writ of assistance. The district court denied Appellees' requests for relief. The neighboring landowner appealed, and Appellees counter-appealed. The Court retained this case. We affirm the district court's ruling to quiet title to Appellees, holding the neighboring landowner failed to prove adverse possession, and we affirm the district court's denial of Appellees' request for money damages. We reverse the district court's denial of Appellees' request for a writ of assistance.

¶1 This matter arises from two competing claims of title to ten (10) acres of property located in McClain County, Oklahoma. Appellant/Counter-Appellee Brenda Kirkham (Kirkham) claims title to the property through adverse possession. Appellees/Counter-Appellants Mohammad Amoorpour (Amoorpour) and Maryam Amnifar, Trustees of the Amoorpour Family Trust, claim title to the property through a warranty deed. ^[1]

¶2 The issues before this Court are whether the district court erred (1) in determining that a 2002 quiet title action involving the same ten acres at issue was dispositive and precluded judgment in favor of Kirkham's claim for adverse possession in this matter; (2) in denying Amoorpour's motion for damages requesting the rental value of the property from Kirkham; and (3) in failing to award possession of the property to Amoorpour.

¶3 The overarching question that this Court must answer is whether Kirkham proved that she adversely possessed the property. Because Kirkham cannot prove that she adversely possessed the property at any time, she has no claim to the property, and Amoorpour hold superior title. We affirm the district court's judgment quieting title to Amoorpour. We also hold that the district court properly denied Amoorpour's motion for damages but erred in failing to grant Amoorpour's writ of assistance.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶4 In 1939, Alexander Welcher, Sr. obtained ownership of the ten acres of property at issue through a resale tax deed. Alexander Welcher visited the property at some point in his lifetime but did not reside on the property. In 1993, Alexander Welcher was presumed deceased in the State of Washington. Alexander Welcher's children probated his estate in Washington and Oklahoma. Alexander Welcher's estate in Oklahoma included the ten acres at issue located in Newcastle, Oklahoma, described as follows:

The Northwest Quester (NW/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW/4) of the Southeast Quarter (SE/4) of SECTION FIVE (5), Township NINE (9) North, Range FOUR (4) West, McClain County Oklahoma

Each of Alexander Welcher's children received one-fifth of the property.

¶5 Two of the children visited the property in the 1990s. Defendant Gay Welcher saw no evidence of activity or ownership of the property by Kirkham. Defendant Alexander Welcher, Jr. did not see any individuals occupying the property. Alexander Welcher, Jr. saw only raw land with brush and did not recall seeing any fences, animals, or improvements on the property. He saw nothing to indicate that any individual was utilizing the land. The taxes for the property were at all times paid by Alexander Welcher, Sr. or his children.

¶6 In 2002, Defendants Jonathan Welcher, Alexander Welcher, Jr., Jeanie Welcher, and Gayle Welcher (collectively Welcher Heirs) sought to quiet title to the property. The Welcher Heirs issued notice to the Bureau of Indian Affairs because the property is in Chickasaw Country and was subject to the interests of the members of the Five Civilized Tribes. The Bureau elected not to remove the quiet title action to federal court, and it agreed to be bound by the district court's judgment. The Welcher Heirs became record owners of the property when the district court filed a judgment in their favor on July 9, 2003.

¶7 The Welcher Heirs then decided to sell the property. In May 2005, Amoorpour purchased the property for $97,000, and the Welcher Heirs deeded the property to him. Amoorpour had no issues with the purchase or the title to the property. He obtained financing, and since that time, he paid off his mortgage. Amoorpour has paid the taxes for the property every year since he purchased the property.

¶8 After purchasing the property, Kirkham and her husband Carl Kirkham (collectively Kirkhams) prevented Amoorpour from entering the property. In 2007, Amoorpour filed this action in district court. The Kirkhams counterclaimed, alleging they had adversely possessed the land for more than 15 years. Amoorpour amended his petition and added a claim against the Welcher Heirs contending that if the Kirkhams prove their adverse possession claim, then the Welcher Heirs breached their warranty of title when they sold the property to Amoorpour. The district court granted a motion for a separate trial to determine Amoorpour's claims against the Welcher Heirs.

¶9 The Kirkhams claimed that they used the property for more than 15 years prior to the 2002 quiet title action. They pastured horses and cows, built fences, dug a pond, and built a baseball backstop on the property. At some point, Mr. Kirkham attempted to pay the taxes for the property. However, an attorney told Mr. Kirkham that Indians owned the property.

¶10 In 2012, Carl Kirkham passed away, and the district court dismissed his claims against Amoorpour. In July 2021, after over ten years of litigation, the district court held a two-day bench trial on Amoorpour's claim for quiet tile ^[2] and Kirkham's counterclaim for adverse possession. The district court granted a directed verdict in favor of Amoorpour, holding that the 2002 quiet title action that awarded title to the Welcher Heirs was dispositive and precluded judgment in favor of Kirkham.

¶11 Three weeks after the trial, Amoorpour filed a writ of assistance. He also filed a motion for damages, requesting the district court to award him rental damages against Kirkham for 196 months of unlawful possession (until July 20, 2022), at $500 per month, equaling $90,000.

¶12 Kirkham responded, arguing that Amoorpour's quiet title claim did not include a claim for a writ of assistance. She also contended that Amoorpour was not entitled to damages because he dismissed his claims for monetary damage before the trial.

¶13 The district court denied Amoorpour's request for damages, concluding that the claim was an alteration to the cause of action by Amoorpour and an attempt to modify his damages claim outlined in the pre-trial order without the court's permission. The district court also denied Amoorpour's request for a writ of assistance, holding Oklahoma law requires Amoorpour to follow additional procedures before the court could issue any writ.

¶14 Kirkham appealed, and Amoorpour counter-appealed. This Court retained the case.

¶15 On appeal, Kirkham claims that she and her husband adversely possessed the land for at least 15 years prior to the 2002 quiet title action. Therefore, the Welcher Heirs should have given her proper notice of or made her a party to the 2002 quiet title action. Kirkham contends the district court erred in holding that the 2002 quiet title action was dispositive of her claim because the action was not valid against her.

¶16 Amoorpour and the Welcher Heirs respond that Kirkham never met the required elements of adverse possession and did not have a claim to title at any point, including when the 2002 quiet title action matter was pending.

¶17 Amoorpour filed a counter-petition in error, claiming that the district court erred in denying his motion for damages and writ of assistance.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶18 A claim for title by adverse possession is an equitable proceeding. The Court will weigh the evidence presented and affirm the district court's decision unless it is against the clear weight of the evidence or is contrary to law. Akin v. Castleberry, 2012 OK 79, ¶ 11, 286 P.3d 638.

¶19 The issues in this appeal also concern questions of law; the correct standard of review is de novo. State ex rel. Protective Health Servs. State Dep't of Health v. Vaughn, 2009 OK 61, ¶ 9, 222 P.3d 1058, 1064. Under the de novo standard of review, the Court has plenary, independent, and non-deferential authority to determine whether the district court erred in its legal rulings. Id.

DISCUSSION

A. KIRKHAM DID NOT PROVE TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION UNDER THE FACTS PRESENTED.

¶20 Adverse possession claims are disfavored and are not to be made by inference. ...