Bohanon v. Edwards
Decision Date | 05 September 2003 |
Citation | 875 So.2d 309 |
Parties | Angela BOHANON et al. v. Bobby EDWARDS. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Donald R. Harrison, Dadeville, for appellant.
Kenneth Ingram, Jr., of Kenneth Ingram, Jr. & Associates, P.C., Alexander City, for appellee.
This case involves an action to quiet title to real property filed by Angela Bohanon, James Chapman, and Debra Poole (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the children") against Bobby Edwards. The children appeal from a judgment of the Tallapoosa Circuit Court in favor of Edwards.
William Robinson ("the father") died intestate on May 2, 1979; he was survived by three minor children, Angela, James, and Debra, who were 18, 10, and 5 years of age, respectively.1 The father was not survived by a spouse or by any siblings. Following the father's death, his parents, Archie Robinson ("the grandfather") and Annie Robinson ("the grandmother"), took possession of a parcel of property the father had acquired by deed in 1973.2 When the grandfather died in 1980, his will devised all of his real property to the grandmother. In 1997, the grandmother died; her will devised all of her real property to Bobby Edwards, her nephew.
On November 24, 1999, Angela Bohanon filed an action in the Tallapoosa Circuit Court to quiet title to the parcel of property that the father had owned. Thereafter, the complaint was amended to add Debra Poole and James Chapman as plaintiffs. On March 21, 2000, Edwards moved for a summary judgment, claiming that he owned legal title to the land by virtue of the grandmother's will. On October 15, 2001, Edwards filed a supplemental motion for a summary judgment, contending that the children's claims should be "dismissed" because they were barred by the 10-year and 20-year limitations periods referenced in Ala.Code 1975, § 6-2-33(2), and Ala. Code 1975, § 6-2-8(a), respectively. Following the filing of this supplemental motion for a summary judgment, the children filed a "trial brief" in which they argued that Edwards could not prove the factual elements requisite to either a showing of statutory adverse possession for the 10-year period prescribed in Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-200, or a showing of adverse possession for the 20-year period of prescription.
Although the trial court did not rule on either of Edwards's motions for a summary judgment, following an ore tenus hearing held on October 1, 2001, the trial court, on January 11, 2002, entered an order dismissing the children's complaint on the same grounds asserted by Edwards in his supplemental motion:
(Emphasis added.)
Thus, as Edwards himself states in his brief to this court, "[t]he trial court never addressed the issue of adverse possession and instead ruled for [Edwards] based on [the] statute [of] limitations."3
The children appeal. They argue that it was error for the trial court to enter the judgment in favor of Edwards based merely on either the 10-year or the 20-year limitations period referenced above without determining whether Edwards had satisfied all of the factual elements necessary under Alabama law to acquire title to real property by adverse possession.
Sparks, 562 So.2d at 214 (quoting Kerlin v. Tensaw Land & Timber Co., 390 So.2d 616, 618 (Ala.1980)) (emphasis omitted). Those required elements to claim title by prescriptive adverse possession, or by statutory adverse possession, are well established and consistently have been reiterated by this court and our Supreme Court in a long line of cases that continues to the present day. See, e.g., Bradley v. Demos, 599 So.2d 1148 (Ala.1992)
Henderson v. Dunn, 871 So.2d 807 (Ala. Civ.App.2001).
The 10-year statute of limitations relied upon by Edwards and by the trial court states, in pertinent part:
Ala.Code 1975, § 6-2-33 (emphasis added).
As for the 20-year limitations period also relied upon by the trial court, § 6-2-8(a) provides, in pertinent part:
The children contend that the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint based merely on the limitations periods prescribed in § 6-2-33 and § 6-2-8, without any finding as to the factual elements requisite to establishing a claim of adverse possession. There clearly is force of logic behind the children's position. If the 20-year prescriptive period referenced in § 6-2-8 is to be applied in the manner in which it was applied by the trial court in this case—without any finding as to whether the qualitative elements of possession necessary to constitute "adverse possession" (i.e., actual, exclusive, open, notorious, hostile, and continuous possession) have been proven—this effectively will excise those elements from our well-established caselaw regarding adverse possession by prescription. Likewise, to apply § 6-2-33(2) as did the trial court—without any finding that the qualitative elements of adverse possession had been proven—would effectively excise those elements from our well-established caselaw regarding statutory adverse possession under § 6-5-200. Further, application of the 10-year limitations period prescribed in § 6-2-33(2) in the manner in which it was applied by the trial court would obviate the need to demonstrate one of the three elements prescribed by § 6-5-200 as a prerequisite for acquiring title by adverse possession in 10 years, rather than in 20 years.
We reverse the trial court's judgment. In doing so, however, it is not necessary for us to rely solely upon the force of logic of the children's position.
In Washington v. Norwood, 128 Ala. 383, 30 So. 404 (1901), the Supreme Court considered a creditor's action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance of land. The grantee asserted both the statute of limitations and adverse possession as defenses. In explaining that both defenses failed for the same reason, the Supreme Court explained as follows:
128 Ala. at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bohanon v. Edwards
...if that cause of action accrued while the plaintiff was a minor). The children appealed, and we reversed. See Bohanon v. Edwards, 875 So.2d 309 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) ("Bohanon I"). In Bohanon I, we concluded that the trial court had improperly dismissed the children's claims, and we remanded t......
-
Collins v. Overstreet
...(1962)."' "Sparks, 562 So.2d at 214 (quoting Kerlin v. Tensaw Land & Timber Co., 390 So.2d 616, 618 (Ala.1980))." Bohanon v. Edwards, 875 So.2d 309, 311 (Ala.Civ.App.2003)(footnote omitted). "Both statutory adverse possession and adverse possession by prescription share the common element[]......
- BG v. STATE DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES