Downey v. North Alabama Mineral Development Co.
Decision Date | 01 October 1982 |
Citation | 420 So.2d 68 |
Parties | Gordon L. DOWNEY, et al. v. NORTH ALABAMA MINERAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a corporation, et al. 81-434. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
W. W. Haralson of Weeks, Weeks & Haralson, Scottsboro, for appellants.
Macbeth Wagnon, Jr. of Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, Birmingham, and Joe M. Dawson of Dawson & McGinty, Scottsboro, for appellees.
The single issue before the Court on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding that the appellants failed to establish their claim of title to the minerals in question without actual possession of the minerals. We affirm the trial court's ruling.
The appellants in this case, plaintiffs below, are all heirs of Mrs. C. J. Downey. On May 20, 1961, Mrs. Downey purchased at a tax sale the severed mineral rights to 82 acres of land in Jackson County, Alabama. Following the tax sale and each year thereafter to the present, Mrs. Downey and her successors in title assessed and paid the taxes on the separate mineral estate. She received her tax deed three years after the tax sale and promptly recorded the deed. As stipulated between the parties at the trial, none of the appellants nor their predecessor in claim of title ever mined or removed any coal or conducted any mining operation on any part of the land. It was stipulated, however, that from 1966 until appellee began mining operations, Leon Downey, son of Mrs. C. J. Downey and agent for the other appellants, did go on the property numerous times to ascertain if anyone was attempting to disturb the minerals.
The exact date appellee commenced mining operations on the property is not clear from the facts furnished the Court. Although Leon Downey notified appellees that appellants claimed mineral and mining rights under the land at the time they began their mining operations, appellees have continued mining, predicating their claim to the mineral rights on a deed to the surface rights of the property and the fact that the tax deed to the mineral rights received by Mrs. Downey in 1964 was void. Appellants base their claim to the mineral rights on an adverse possession claim because the tax deed, as determined by the trial court, was defective and therefore ineffective to pass title. The trial court ruled that because there was no color of title accompanied by an adverse possession that was actual, notorious, exclusive, continuous and hostile for the statutory period of ten years, appellants' request for relief must be denied.
In reviewing the ruling of the trial court in this case, the Court must decide whether mineral rights that have been severed in title from the surface can be adversely possessed without opening mines and carrying on mining operations. Because of the supposed infirmities of the tax deed for the mineral interests received by Mrs. Downey in May of 1964, appellants, as successors in interest, contend that their title to the mineral estate of this land has been perfected by statutory adverse possession under the terms of Alabama Code § 6-5-200 (1975), which reads:
With regard to statutory adverse possession, this Court has stated the following:
Kerlin v. Tensaw Land & Timber Co., 390 So.2d 616, 618 (Ala.1980).
Although appellants, as stipulated, admit that they have never attempted to remove any coal from this property, they rely substantially on the Court's decision in Nelson v. Teal, 293 Ala. 173, 301 So.2d 51 (1974).
In Nelson v. Teal, which dealt with the three-year statute of limitations on actions by record owners to recover land sold for payment of taxes and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hubbard v. Cason
...by adverse possession in 10 years, instead of the 20 years required to establish a prescriptive easement. Downey v. North Alabama Mineral Dev. Co., 420 So.2d 68 (Ala. 1982)."The trial court cited Apley v. Tagert, 584 So.2d 816, 819 (Ala. 1991), in which our supreme court observed"that it is......
-
Melton v. Harbor Pointe Llc.
...by adverse possession in 10 years, instead of the 20 years required to establish a prescriptive easement. Downey v. North Alabama Mineral Dev. Co., 420 So.2d 68 (Ala.1982).”Jones v. Johnson, 827 So.2d 768, 771–72 (Ala.2002). Melton did not present any evidence showing that her use of the dr......
-
Jacks v. Taylor, No. 2060455 (Ala. Civ. App. 11/2/2007)
...taxes on the property for ten years, or have derived his title by descent or devise. Code 1975, § 6-5-200. Downey v. North Alabama Mineral Development Co., 420 So. 2d 68 (Ala. 1982). However, in cases like the present one, where adverse possession is claimed by a conterminous owner, the thr......
-
Butterworth v. Morgan
...by adverse possession in 10 years, instead of the 20 years required to establish a prescriptive easement. Downey v. North Alabama Mineral Dev. Co., 420 So.2d 68 (Ala.1982). `Because of the unique nature of the easement interest, it is indeed rare that an easement is claimed under the ten-ye......
-
Chapter 7 MEDICINE FOR AILING MINERAL TITLES: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF ADVERSE POSSESSION, STATUTES OF LIMITATION, AND DORMANT MINERAL ACTS
...and Meyers, supra note 3, § 224.1, at 347-52; Kuntz, supra note 42, at 413-18. [44] E.g., Downey v. North Ala. Mineral Develop. Co., 420 So. 2d 68 (Ala. 1982); White v. Merchants & Planters Bank, 90 So. 2d 11 (Miss. 1956); Lyles v. Dodge, 228 S.W. 316 (Tex. Civ. App. 1921). Even where actua......