Blair v. Preece
| Decision Date | 21 December 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 18477,18477 |
| Parties | Myrtle Sue BLAIR, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. Amos PREECE and Hazel Preece, Defendants Below, Appellees. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. "A map or blue print made by a surveyor, though not evidence independently of his testimony, is properly admitted in connection therewith for illustration and explanation of his evidence." Syllabus point 1, Covert v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., 85 W.Va. 64, 100 S.E. 854 (1919).
2. "One who seeks to assert title to a tract of land under the doctrine of adverse possession must prove each of the following elements for the requisite statutory period: (1) That he has held the tract adversely or hostilely; (2) That the possession has been actual; (3) That it has been open and notorious (sometimes stated in the cases as visible and notorious); (4) That possession has been exclusive; (5) That possession has been continuous; (6) That possession has been under claim of title or color of title." Syllabus point 3, Somon v. Murphy Fabrication & Erection Co., 160 W.Va. 84, 232 S.E.2d 524 (1977).
Myrtle Sue Blair, Huntington, for appellant.
W. Truman Chafin, Williamson, for appellees.
This is an appeal by Myrtle Sue Blair from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Mingo County in a boundary line dispute. 1 On appeal the appellant, who represented herself during trial, alleges that the circuit court made numerous procedural errors. Prominent among them are that the court erred in allowing the appellees, Amos Preece and Hazel Preece, to introduce into evidence a map prepared by a surveyor, James A. Coleman, and that the jury's verdict was not supported by the evidence. After reviewing the record, this Court can find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Mingo County is affirmed.
This case was tried before a jury on June 29 and June 30, 1987. The evidence showed that the appellant and the appellees owned adjoining parcels of real estate located in Kermit, West Virginia. Both parcels had, in the early 1940's, belonged to J.B. and Stella Crum. The property, as owned by the Crums, was described as Lots 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, and five feet of Lot 84 in Block 4 of the Town of Kermit, Mingo County, West Virginia. On April 22, 1944, the Crums conveyed the property to C.A. and Nanny Branham, who, in turn, by deed dated September 7, 1946, conveyed a part of the property to Essie Puglici, the appellant's mother. The property conveyed to Essie Puglici was described by metes and bounds rather than by reference to lot numbers.
The residue of the Branham property in time passed to Esther Cooper, who, by deed dated August 1, 1962, conveyed it to Amos and Hazel Preece, the appellees. In the deed to the Preeces the property was described as Lots 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, and five feet of Lot 84, all in Block 4 of the Town of Kermit, Mingo County, West Virginia. There, however, was excepted from the conveyance a strip which had been transferred by the Crums to H.K. Curry. 2 There was also excepted from the transfer the property which had been transferred by the Branhams to Essie Puglici. The language creating the exception to Essie Puglici provided:
There is further reserved from this conveyance that part of said lots described herein that was conveyed unto Essie Puglici from C.A. Branham and Mannie Branham, by deed dated the 7th day of September, 1946, and which is of record in the aforesaid clerk's office in Deed Book No. 101, at page 406 thereof.
After receiving her portion of the Branham property, Essie Puglici, in 1953, transferred a life estate in it to her husband, Pete Puglici. Essie Puglici survived her husband and as remainderman reacquired full ownership of the property. Subsequently, by deed dated November 16, 1980, Mrs. Puglici transferred the property to her daughter Myrtle Sue Blair, the appellant.
Upon receiving the property the appellant investigated the boundaries to it and decided that a strip of land which the Preeces and their predecessors had been using actually belonged to her. This action was instituted to resolve the question of who owned that disputed strip.
The Preeces took the position that they owned the disputed strip through one of two legal principles. First, they contended that the metes and bounds out-conveyance made by the Branhams to the appellant's mother, Essie Puglici, did not include the disputed strip. To establish this point they called as a witness Mr. James A. Coleman, a licensed surveyor. He had surveyed the property and prepared a plat of it. His testimony indicated that the disputed strip was not included in the conveyance to Essie Puglici. The Preeces' second position was that even if Essie Puglici, and by succession the appellant, had acquired record title to the disputed strip, they, the Preeces, had acquired actual title by adverse possession. To establish this point they introduced evidence showing that their predecessor in title, Ira Cooper and his wife, had claimed the real estate in dispute beginning in 1950. They also showed that Essie Puglici, who had lived next to the disputed land, had not disputed their ownership or that of their predecessors for thirty years. They took the position that the disputed property had been actually used in conjunction with their claim for parking spaces over a lengthy period of time.
At the conclusion of the evidence in the case, the appellant offered a large number of instructions, certain of which were given by the trial court and others of which were refused. Subsequently, the jury, after hearing the instructions, returned a verdict in favor of the Preeces.
The appellant's first contention in the present proceeding is that the trial court erred in admitting the plat into evidence and allowing the jury to consider it as a basis for the its verdict. In arguing the point, however, the appellant does not focus on the admissibility of the survey, but rather on the surveyor's conclusion as to the location of the boundary line in dispute.
In the course of the trial Mr. Coleman, the surveyor for the Preeces who had prepared the map, explained how he had surveyed the line in question and how he had drawn his sketch. He indicated that during his survey he had located certain iron pins noted on his plat. He explained how his survey findings differed from what the appellant claimed, and he indicated that the plat showed how he thought the lines ran.
It is within the broad discretion of a trial court to determine whether to admit sketches, maps, or diagrams. State v. Sibert, 113 W.Va. 717, 169 S.E. 410 (1933); Hoge v. Ohio River Railroad Co., 35 W.Va. 562, 14 S.E. 152 (1891). Also, a map made by a surveyor, although not evidence independent of his testimony, is properly admissible in connection with his testimony for illustration and explanation of his evidence. As stated in syllabus point 1 of Covert v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., 85 W.Va. 64, 100 S.E. 854 (1919):
A map or blue print made by a surveyor, though not evidence independently of his testimony, is properly admitted in connection therewith for illustration and explanation of his evidence.
It appears that Surveyor Coleman explained in considerable detail how he conducted his survey and how he reached his opinions as to the location of the boundary line in question. He used the plat to illustrate his testimony. Under the circumstances, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting the plat into evidence. Although Surveyor Coleman's findings were contrary to the appellant's belief as to where the boundary line ran, he was a licensed surveyor in the State of West Virginia.
The appellant next claims that the trial court erred in refusing to give certain instructions offered by her on the effect of the existence of life estates on adverse possession.
As previously indicated, an alternative position assumed by the appellees, the Preeces, was that they owned the property in dispute by adverse possession. To counter this position, the appellant offered five life estate instructions. The giving of the instructions was prompted by the fact that the appellant's predecessor in interest, Essie Puglici, had created a life estate in her property in 1953, three years after the Preeces' predecessor in interest, Ira Cooper, had taken possession of the property in dispute. The appellant asserted that the creation of the life estate affected the running of the period of limitations for adverse possession, and that the Preeces could not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cordial v. Ernst & Young
...906 (1995). Ms. Cordial also contends that Defendants' Instruction No. 73 is binding and is therefore improper under Blair v. Preece, 180 W.Va. 501, 377 S.E.2d 493 (1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 923, 109 S.Ct. 3253, 106 L.Ed.2d 599 (1989), and State v. Parks, 161 W.Va. 511, 243 S.E.2d 848 (......
-
Johnson v. West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc.
...by the evidence should be refused." Syl. pt. 3, Lilly v. Taylor, 151 W.Va. 730, 155 S.E.2d 579 (1967). See Blair v. Preece, 180 W.Va. 501, 504-05, 377 S.E.2d 493, 497 (1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 923, 109 S.Ct. 3253, 106 L.Ed.2d 599 Based upon our review of the record, we find no error on......
-
Heavner v. Three Run Maint. Ass'n, Inc., 18-1080
...bench trial where documents introduced regarding chain of title supported circuit court's factual findings); cf. Blair v. Preece, 180 W. Va. 501, 505, 377 S.E.2d 493, 498 (1988) (contrasting testimony of surveyor with introduction of mere "chain of documents" regarding location of boundary ......
-
Lowe v. Hegyi
...Trust property was irrelevant, and it was not error for the circuit court to refuse such an instruction. See Blair v. Preece, 180 W.Va. 501, 505 377 S.E.2d 493, 497(1989) ("The refusal to give an irrelevant instruction is not error."). For much the same reason, we reject petitioners' conten......