Buckner v. Hosch
Decision Date | 28 December 2007 |
Docket Number | 2060872. |
Citation | 987 So.2d 1149 |
Parties | James BUCKNER v. Danny HOSCH and Jowana Hosch. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Jerry W. Jackson and Scott A. Slatton of Jackson, Mays, McNutt, Cook & Slatton, LLC, Haleyville, for appellant.
Nelson Vinson, Hamilton, for appellees.
The defendant, James Buckner, appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Danny Hosch and Jowana Hosch, in a dispute regarding land. We reverse and remand.
Between 1985 and 1990, the Hosches acquired record title to several tracts of land ("the Hosches' land") located in Section 3 in Marion County. In 2000, Buckner purchased two tracts of land located in Section 3 in Marion County at a tax sale. One of the tracts purchased by Buckner ("Buckner's northern tract") contained approximately 50 acres and was located immediately north of the Buttahatchee River ("the river") and immediately south of the Hosches' land. The other tract purchased by Buckner contained approximately 70 acres and was located immediately south of the river opposite Buckner's northern tract. Although they had never acquired record title to Buckner's northern tract, the Hosches had erected a fence around Buckner's northern tract sometime in 1987 and thereafter had used it as a pasture for cattle. In 2003, Buckner received a deed conveying title to the two tracts he had bought at the tax sale in 2000. Thereafter, a dispute arose between Buckner and the Hosches over who owned Buckner's northern tract.
In 2006, the Hosches sued Buckner, alleging a quiet-title claim against him. Thereafter, the Hosches amended their complaint to allege a claim seeking the establishment of the river as the boundary line between their land and Buckner's land. Buckner answered the Hosches' complaint and amended complaint with general denials. The trial court received evidence ore tenus at a bench trial on February 23, 2007, and thereafter entered a judgment stating, in pertinent part:
Buckner moved the trial court to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment in favor of the Hosches. After the trial court denied Buckner's postjudgment motion, Buckner appealed to the supreme court, and the supreme court transferred the appeal to this court, pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala. Code 1975.
On appeal, Buckner argues that the trial court erred in entering a judgment in favor of the Hosches because, Buckner says, (1) this is an adverse-possession case rather than a boundary-line dispute, and, therefore, he asserts, the Hosches had to prove that they had acquired ownership of Buckner's northern tract by virtue of either statutory adverse possession or prescriptive adverse possession in order to win a judgment in their favor; and (2) the Hosches' failed to prove that they had acquired ownership of Buckner's northern tract by virtue of either statutory adverse possession or prescriptive adverse possession. We agree.
Because the trial court's judgment in this case is based on the application of the law to the facts, the following principles govern our review:
Retail Developers of Alabama, LLC v. East Gadsden Golf Club, Inc., 985 So.2d 924, 929 (Ala.2007).
In Kerlin v. Tensaw Land & Timber Co., 390 So.2d 616 (Ala.1980), the supreme court recited Alabama law regarding adverse possession:
390...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dickinson v. Suggs
...case to which the hybrid form of adverse possession applicable in boundary-line disputes did not apply).”Buckner v. Hosch, 987 So.2d 1149, 1152 (Ala.Civ.App.2007). In the present case, the Suggses claimed to have adversely possessed a total of 1.2 acres of the Dickinsons' total 8.6 acres, i......
-
Ala. Power Co. v. Keller, 2150979
... ... Id. at 1187 (quoting Buckner v. Hosch , 987 So. 2d 1149, 1152 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007)) (emphasis added). Keller argues that the land disputed in the parties' claims is not ... ...
-
Williams v. White
...possession by prescription. [Ala.] Code 1975, § 6–5–200. See, Long v. Ladd, 273 Ala. 410, 142 So.2d 660 (1962).’ "Buckner v. Hosch, 987 So.2d 1149, 1151–52 (Ala.Civ.App.2007).Furthermore, although the sisters initiated this action to enforce White's deed and to prevent him from encroaching ......
-
Lindsey v. Aldridge
...the amendment as superseding the claim seeking a determination of a boundary-line dispute was harmless error. In Buckner v. Hosch, 987 So. 2d 1149, 1151-52 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007), this court stated:"In Kerlin v. Tensaw Land & Timber Co., 390 So. 2d 616 (Ala. 1980), the supreme court recited ......