Boren v. Roberts
Decision Date | 19 November 1982 |
Citation | 423 So.2d 208 |
Parties | Russell BOREN v. Woodie ROBERTS. 81-856. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Phil Laird and Henry C. Wiley, Jr. of Elliott, Laird & Wiley, Jasper, for appellant.
Robert E. Cooper of Rives & Peterson, Birmingham, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a decree establishing the boundary line between coterminous landowners. We affirm.
Boren filed the action against Roberts. The complaint alleged that a dispute had arisen as to the correct position of their common boundary.
Roberts (defendant) acquired the property by two conveyances. The first conveyance from C.V. Yates and Annie Yates occurred in November, 1956, and conveyed the following:
The second parcel was acquired from Marzell Robbins and Dorthy Robbins in March, 1963. This conveyance contained the following description:
The Robbinses had acquired this second described tract from the Yateses in April, 1960.
Plaintiff Boren's chain of title also originates with the Yateses. In October, 1960, the Yateses conveyed the following described property to Thomas Earl Raines, John Thomas Raines, and Robert Freeman Raines:
In February, 1961, Thomas Earl Raines acquired the property from his co-grantees. In August, 1977, Thomas Earl Raines conveyed the property by the same description to James Dennis. On October 6, 1977, James Dennis conveyed the property, again by the same description, to the plaintiff, Russell Boren.
All of the conveyances in the plaintiff's chain of title find their point of beginning at the southeast corner of the Marzell Robbins property. There is no instrument of conveyance that conveys any portion of the Robbins property to the plaintiff or any of his predecessors in title. It is a portion of the property originally conveyed by Yates to Robbins that the plaintiff is claiming by adverse possession.
A default judgment was entered against the defendant in November, 1979. The trial court set the default judgment aside and held a hearing on the motion. After viewing the property, the trial court fixed the boundary line between the two owners by first finding the correct description of the defendant's property. The court then fixed the east line of the defendant's property as the west line of the plaintiff's property.
On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in setting aside the default judgment. We cannot agree. Rule 55(c) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
"In its discretion, the court may set aside an entry of default and the court may set aside a judgment by default within 30 days thereafter."
In Oliver v. Sawyer, 359 So.2d 368 (Ala.1978), we said:
359 So.2d 368, 369-70. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in setting aside the default judgment in this case.
There is some confusion surrounding a purported amendment to the default judgment based upon an alleged agreement. At the hearing on the defendant's motion to set the default judgment aside, the defendant argued that he had not agreed to a settlement of the matter, and the trial court apparently believed him. Again, this is a matter within the trial court's discretion, and we will not reverse a trial court which allows a hearing on the merits absent a showing of abuse of discretion.
Finally, the appellant argues that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cagle v. Hammond
...period. We also note that the presumption is in favor of the record owner.” (citations omitted; emphasis added)); and Boren v. Roberts, 423 So.2d 208, 210 (Ala.1982) (“Under the law of Alabama, a person claiming title by adverse possession against the holder of legal title has the burden of......
-
Storey v. Patterson
...276 Ala. 695, 166 So.2d 423 (1964)." (Emphasis supplied.) Such possession must be shown by clear and convincing evidence, Boren v. Roberts, 423 So.2d 208 (Ala.1982), because every presumption is in favor of the holder of legal title. Casey v. McIntosh, 361 So.2d 1040 (Ala.1978); Prestwood v......
-
Agio Industries, Inc. v. Delta Oil Co., Inc.
...judgment first. The denial of a motion to set aside a default judgment is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Boren v. Roberts, 423 So.2d 208 (Ala.1982). Such a denial may be reversed only if the trial court has abused its discretion. Wade v. Pridmore, 361 So.2d 511 (Ala.1978). ......
-
Robinson v. Hamilton
...bore the burden of proving the existence of every element of adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence. Boren v. Roberts, 423 So.2d 208 (Ala.1982). Since the trial court did not specifically mention any field lines in its judgment, we assume that the trial court found that the def......