Baird v. Crosthwait (In re Crosthwait), Case No.: 05-19292-JDW
| Decision Date | 25 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 05-19292-JDW,A.P. No.: 15-01089-JDW |
| Parties | In re: ALLEN EDWARD CROSTHWAIT Debtor. DAVID E. BAIRD, Plaintiff, v. ALLEN EDWARD CROSTHWAIT, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
The Order of the Court is set forth below. The case docket reflects the date entered.
This adversary proceeding came before the Court for trial on August 28, 2018, having been removed from the Chancery Court for the First JudicialDistrict of Chickasaw County, Mississippi, to this Court by debtor-defendant Allen Edward Crosthwait (the "Defendant").
Plaintiff David E. Baird (the "Plaintiff") and Defendant own neighboring tracts of land. While cutting timber from his own land, the Defendant crossed the property line and cut over 14 acres of timber from the Plaintiff's property. The Defendant now contends he owns the property, and therefore the timber, by adverse possession.
Having considered the evidence, the argument of counsel, and the law, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff has clear legal title of record to the property and the trees that were growing there, and the Defendant has failed to meet the elements of adverse possession. The Plaintiff is due statutory damages and expenses under Mississippi Code Annotated § 95-5-10(1) and (3).2 The Court also finds that the Defendant did not willfully or recklessly cut the Plaintiff's timber; thus, the Plaintiff is not entitled to enhanced damages under § 95-5-10(2).
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC §§ 151, 157(a) and 1334, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi's Order of Reference of Bankruptcy Cases and Proceedings Nunc Pro Tunc datedAugust 6, 1984. This is a core proceeding as set forth in 28 USC § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (C), (E), and (O). This adversary proceeding was removed from state court and involves state law causes of action and affirmative defenses, but the issues center around whether the land and the timber are property of the bankruptcy estate. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction. 28 USC § 157; Endeavour GP, LLC v. Endeavour Highrise, L.P. (In re Endeavour Highrise, L.P.), 432 B.R. 583, 628-29 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2010) ().
The facts are relatively straightforward. The Plaintiff owns a large tract of land bordered by the Defendant's large tract of land. The Plaintiff's tract is entirely covered in timber, both 70 to 75-year-old hardwood trees and 20 to 30 year-old pine trees. The Defendant's land is almost entirely cultivated row crop land. In many places, the crop extends up to the property line.
In late September 2014, the Defendant hired D.L. Boyd to cut the small amount of timber on the Defendant's land. The Defendant was not present when the logging occurred. Instead, he relied on Mr. Boyd to determine theproperty line and cut accordingly. Mr. Boyd is a logger, not a surveyor, and has no surveying certifications of any kind.
After the trees were cut and the dispute arose, both parties hired surveyors to determine the proper boundaries. The surveyors agree that the Plaintiff is correct. The Defendant's own surveyor, Harold Dendy, agrees that the Defendant cut over 14 acres of hardwood and pine trees on the Plaintiff's property.
This is best illustrated by Plaintiff's Exhibit 15, which was admitted into evidence and is attached to this Opinion. The boundaries of the Plaintiff's tract are clearly indicated by the four straight red lines noted in the legend as "Boundary 120 ac." The Defendant's tract is immediately east (not including the large stand of timber north of County Road 414) and north of the Plaintiff's tract.4 The meandering lines inside the Plaintiff's tract mark the areas where the Defendant cut the Plaintiff's timber.
The Defendant clearly cut trees on land to which the Plaintiff has clear legal title. The Defendant asserts that these were actually his trees, relying on his contention that he planted some of the pine trees that run along the eastern boundary. Witness Eddie Wiggs credibly testified, however, that he witnessed the Plaintiff's father planting the pine trees in the late 1980's.
Mr. Wiggs further testified that he has spent over 50 years regularly hunting on the property, and that there was no evidence of anyone other than the Plaintiff occupying the property. The Court finds Mr. Wigg's testimony to be credible.
The Defendant contends that there was an old fence line to the west of the north-south property line and that the timber fell within that fence line.5 No witness testified to the presence of a fence other than the Defendant and his employees. Neither surveyor noted a fence. Further, if the Defendant believed that he owned property to the old fence line, he would have cut the trees all the way to the fence line on the southern border, or at a minimum claim that he also adversely possessed those trees. The Defendant does not claim that the trees cut at the north end of the property fall to the east of the fence. The Court finds that there was not a fence and, even if there was, it was no longer standing and would not have put any party on notice that the Defendant was claiming any timber as his own. This finding is supported by the credible testimony of the Plaintiff and Mr. Wiggs.
While the Defendant may have depended on Mr. Boyd to determine the property line, he did so at his peril. Mr. Boyd was clearly the Defendant's agent and determining the property line and cutting the correct trees were clearly inthe scope of his employment. Wood v. Mossy Oak Properties, Inc., 120 So.3d 443, 446 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (). That said, the Court finds no malicious intent on the part of the Defendant and no indication that he intended to steal the timber. The Defendant did not have any belief that the trees that were being cut belonged to the Plaintiff. The Defendant and his agent simply got the property line wrong.
As previously noted, the Plaintiff's claims and the Defendant's defenses are all grounded in state law. Notwithstanding, this Court can resolve these claims and apply state law in doing so. Butner v. U.S., 440 U.S. 48, 58 (1979).
The Defendant clearly cut trees on property to which the Plaintiff has clear legal title of record. Section 95-5-10 provides in toto:
MISS. CODE ANN. § 95-5-10. This statute establishes the remedy for cutting down trees belonging to another, regardless of good faith, and provides additional damages if the cutting was done willfully or with reckless disregard for the rights of the true owner. Stockstill v. Gammill, 943 So.2d 35, 46 (Miss. 2006).
Section 95-5-10(1) requires that the Plaintiff prove that he owned the trees and that the Defendant cut them down without the Plaintiff's consent. There is no dispute as to whether the Defendant had the trees cut. He did. The Plaintiff has established that the trees belonged to him and that they were cut down by the Defendant and his agent,...
To continue reading
Request your trial