Bracy v. Scott
Decision Date | 02 August 1991 |
Citation | 589 So.2d 145 |
Parties | Mingo BRACY, Sr., and Teresa Bracy v. Frank D. SCOTT, Jr., and Mary B. Scott Cobb. 1900042. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
James R. Cooper, Jr., Montgomery, for appellants.
James T. Sasser, Gadsden, for appellees.
Mingo and Teresa Bracy appeal from a summary judgment against them and in favor of the plaintiffs, Frank D. Scott, Jr., and his sister, Mary B. Scott Cobb (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the Scotts") in this action brought by the Scotts to evict the Bracys from a 60-acre parcel of land owned by the Scotts. These parties have previously been before this court in Scott v. Bracy, 530 So.2d 799 (Ala.1988), an action that also involved the ownership of this same parcel of property.
In Scott, supra, the Bracys alleged that they owned this property by statutory adverse possession or by adverse possession by prescription. The Bracys' allegations were based on their claim that they had derived title by descent cast. Id., at 800. In claiming to derive title by descent cast in the prior action, the Bracys took the position that "there is no dispute among the parties that Nelson Bracy, the plaintiff Mingo Bracy's father, owned this property in fee simple prior to 1928." This Court held that the Bracys' possession of the disputed property was permissive rather than adverse. In its opinion, this Court recognized that "[t]he evidence is undisputed that in 1930 Nelson Bracy, Mingo Bracy's father, conveyed by warranty deed the property in question to W. L. C. Haigler, the grandfather of [the Scotts]." Id.
The Bracys defended this action for eviction by asserting an interest in the disputed property through inheritance from Henry Bracy, who was Nelson Bracy's father and Mingo Bracy's grandfather. In this action, the Bracys allege that Henry Bracy owned this parcel of property and that, upon Henry Bracy's death, the property passed through intestate succession to the heirs of Henry Bracy. Thus, the Bracys' position in this action is that Nelson, as an heir of Henry, owned only a fractional interest in the land along with Henry's other heirs.
The Scotts contend that the Bracys are estopped from asserting that Nelson owned only a fractional interest in the disputed property because of the position they took in Scott, supra. We agree.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
TERMINIX INTERN. CO. v. Jackson
...Bertrand v. Handley, 646 So.2d 16 (Ala.1994); Luna v. Dominion Bank of Middle Tennessee, Inc., 631 So.2d 917 (Ala.1993); Bracy v. Scott, 589 So.2d 145 (Ala.1991); Russell v. Russell, 404 So.2d 662 Because Terminix took the position that only the contract claim was subject to arbitration, an......
-
Selma Foundry and Supply Co., Inc. v. Peoples Bank and Trust Co.
...estoppel focuses on the relationship between the parties to the prior litigation." Oneida, 848 F.2d at 419. See also Bracy v. Scott, 589 So.2d 145 (Ala.1991). In Oneida, the debtor instituted bankruptcy proceedings and failed to disclose any claim against United Jersey Bank ("United"). Afte......