Doyle v. Smith
| Decision Date | 18 September 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 104,698.,104,698. |
| Citation | 202 P.3d 856,2009 OK CIV APP 5 |
| Parties | Nancy DOYLE, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Jeremy SMITH and Dana Smith, Defendants/Appellees, and James A. Smith and Dorothy L. Smith, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Nancy Doyle, Defendant/Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appeal from the District Court of Bryan County, Oklahoma; Honorable Mark Campbell, Trial Judge
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Jarrod Heath Stevenson, Stevenson Law Firm, PLLC, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Defendant/Appellant, Nancy Doyle.
Payton L. Phelps, Durant, OK, for Defendants/Appellees, Jeremy and Dana Smith.
Don Michael Haggerty, D. Michael Haggerty, Haggerty & Haggerty, Durant, OK, for Plaintiffs/Appellees, James A. and Dorothy L. Smith.
¶ 1 Nancy Doyle (Doyle) appeals from a judgment against her in a consolidated action where, in one case, Doyle was plaintiff and Jeremy Smith and Dana Smith (D.Smith) were defendants, and in the other case, James A. Smith (Smith) and Dorothy Smith, were plaintiffs and Doyle was defendant.1
¶ 2 This case began as a boundary dispute between Doyle and Smith. They are neighbors since each purchased their respective property in the 1970s. Their property was separated by an old, meandering fence and trees on Smith's west side and Doyle's east side.2 The fence was in place when they each purchased the property. The dispute that arose was whether the fence and trees constituted the boundary line.
¶ 3 The dispute escalated when Smith began to remove the fence and trees. Doyle filed suit against Smith and his wife on August 23, 2002, seeking injunctive relief to restore the fence and a determination that she owned the property on her side of the fence line by virtue of adverse possession.3 The case was tried before the court on August 24, 2004.4
¶ 4 The court heard testimony and received documentary evidence detailing the history of the ownerships and the parties' relationships. Smith appeared pro se. Both sides presented evidence as to their exclusive uses of their property up to the fence. James Smith testified that he thought the matter was settled by having a survey and establishing a new fence on the survey line. He also testified that he owned the property on his side of the fence and Doyle owned the property on the other side and that the general community knew that the fence was the boundary. He also testified that he had never sold any of his twenty acres since 1979 and that he owned twenty acres.5
¶ 5 Smith's daughter, Dana Smith, testified as a witness on his behalf. She testified that the general community knew that Smith owned on the east side of the fence and that Doyle owned on the west side and that the fence was the boundary.6 She further testified that she and her father recognized the fence as the boundary and conducted themselves accordingly.7 She was not asked, at this trial, and she did not volunteer, whether she owned any of the twenty acres by virtue of a conveyance from her father.
¶ 6 The court, after both sides completed their presentations, announced that the case was taken under advisement. The court informed the parties, "I will let you know my decision by Minute Order."8
¶ 7 On October 18, 2004, the trial court signed and filed a typed Order (October 18th Order).9 This document contains the case caption and case number and is styled "Order." In the lower left corner of the document a handwritten notation reads:
π to JE
copy to counsel & def
FMH
The body of the document reads:
Court finds that Plaintiff was in open, notorious, hostile and adverse possession of all property west of the original fence line.
The original fence line is found as follows:
The northeast corner of plaintiff's property begins where the tree in Plaintiff's Exhibit 27 formerly stood but was dozed down, thence south at an angle to the old southeast corner represented in Plaintiff's Exhibit Numbers 14 and 15.
Defendant to restore fence and pay Plaintiff's costs.
Approved by the District Judge of Bryan County, Nineteenth Judicial District, this 18th day of October, 2004.
IT IS SO ORDERED!
S/ Ferrell M. Hatch
Ferrell M. Hatch
District Judge
¶ 8 No other form of order or journal entry was prepared and filed according to the record before this Court. However, in a subsequent proceeding, on September 23, 2005, Smith was found to be in contempt of the October 18th Order because he did not replace the fence as ordered, but put it on the survey line.10 During the contempt proceeding, the trial judge repeatedly referred to what he had ordered done and that he determined the fence line boundary was established by adverse possession. Smith was adjudicated to be in contempt and directed to "build a fence on the property line that was previously ordered" or be fined and jailed.11 It does not appear from the record that any party appealed either the October 18th Order or the subsequent contempt finding.
¶ 9 On March 25, 2006, Doyle filed, in Doyle I, a motion for a temporary injunction against Smith. A new trial judge was assigned because the original judge had retired. Doyle also named D. Smith and her husband as defendants, stating that they claimed some interest in the land in issue by reason of a deed dated and filed August 14, 2002. Doyle's Motion set out the case history including the contempt finding. She alleged that Smith had not complied and that she caused a fence to be built on the fence line established by the October 18th Order. She claimed that Smith began to tear the fence down and intended to build another at a location on her property.
¶ 10 On April 24, 2006, D. Smith and her husband specially appeared seeking dismissal of the injunction motion. They maintained that they were not parties to Doyle I and that adding them in post-judgment proceedings is not permitted. The court dismissed them and granted Doyle time to refile a new action. Smith was ultimately sanctioned for failure to comply with the contempt finding entered subsequent to the October 18th Order.12
¶ 11 Doyle then sued D. Smith and her husband in a separate action brought on June 21, 2006 (Doyle II). Doyle's petition alleges the fact of the conveyance from Smith to his daughter D. Smith and her husband. Doyle claimed that she owned that portion of the land conveyed by Smith, which was west of the common fence line, by adverse possession and by virtue of the decision in Doyle I.
¶ 12 Now divorced, Dana Smith, answered and admitted the existence of a historic fence. She denied Doyle's claim of adverse possession. She denied that she was bound in any manner by Doyle I. In a counterclaim, D. Smith alleged ownership of a parcel of land out of the ten-acre tract adjacent to Doyle by virtue of a conveyance from Smith dated August 14, 2002. The parcel consisted of approximately one acre and a road easement.
¶ 13 D. Smith alleged that the fence, in place for more than fifteen years, was the boundary by acquiescence of the owners of the lands on each side of the fence. She alleged that the fence was situated, in part, to the west of the line established by the legal description, and thus partially on Doyle's side. She claimed title also by adverse possession as to the land situated east of the fence. Last, she alleged that Doyle had constructed a new fence which encroached on the land she claimed as a result of the historic fence boundary. Her request for relief included quieting title and removal of the newly constructed fence.
¶ 14 Then, on July 26, 2006, Smith sued Doyle (Doyle III) claiming that Doyle unlawfully erected a fence on the Smith property.13 The petition alleges that Smith owns the entire twenty-acre tract, which includes the parcel in the ten acres Dana Smith supposedly owns as of August 14, 2002. In response, Doyle denied any illegal action and alleged ownership of the land she fenced by virtue of the trial court order in Doyle I. Doyle II and Doyle III were consolidated, over Doyle's objection, and tried to the court.
¶ 15 The dispute in Doyle II and Doyle III concerned the new fence erected by Doyle. Smith testified, using recent photographs, that the old fence line actually lay west of the survey boundary so that using the Doyle I boundary would result in a fence that took in a portion of Doyle's property. He further testified that a new fence, erected by Doyle or members of her family, did not follow the old fence line and encroached up to fifty-five feet easterly onto his property and that of his daughter. He stated that his desire was to have the fence placed on the survey line.
¶ 16 Doyle and her daughter testified. Doyle's daughter had participated in erecting the new fence. Their evidence was that the new fence followed the historic fence line and conformed to the Doyle I order. When asked whether she paid taxes on the land, she responded that she owned eighty acres "more or less" and paid the taxes on the land.
¶ 17 After the trial, and before a decision, the court directed the parties to brief the question of whether Doyle I disposed of Doyle II and Doyle III by res judicata or estoppel.14 After the parties briefed the issue, the court ruled that Doyle I did not dispose of Doyle II and Doyle III for the reason that the prior litigation did not result in a final judgment.
¶ 18 The court then decided the issues in favor of Smith and Dana Smith, with a finding that Doyle did not adversely possess the land in issue. The court directed that the fence be placed on the survey line at Doyle's expense. Doyle appeals.
¶ 19 The availability of the doctrine of issue preclusion presents a question of law to be reviewed de novo. Whether it applies under the facts presented here calls for an exercise of the trial court's discretion, which this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daz Mgmt., LLC v. Honnen Equip. Co.
...v. Turner, 274 Ga. 566, 555 S.E.2d 427, 430 (2001) ; Adair v. State, 470 Mich. 105, 680 N.W.2d 386, 396 (2004) ; Doyle v. Smith, 202 P.3d 856, 866 (Okla. Civ. App. 2008) ; Lennon v. Dacomed Corp., 901 A.2d 582, 591 (R.I. 2006).52 Taylor, 553 U.S. at 892-93, 128 S.Ct. 2161 (citation omitted)......
-
Wall v. Works & Lentz of Tulsa, Inc.
...and requires a person so identified in interest with another that he represents the same legal right." Id. (quoting Doyle v. Smith, 2009 OK CIV APP 5, ¶ 47, 202 P.3d 856, 866). Finally, defendant argues, "plaintiffs' cited authority for their argument regarding privity is a case from the Te......
-
Rutan v. State, F-2007-1022.
... ... During the evening, Appellant told Burkhalter that DHS had taken Logan that morning ... ¶ 23 On Monday, June 24, Dannella Smith, with Meadowlake Hospital, phoned Appellant to tell her that a bed was available for Logan. Appellant told her she didn't need the space, that Logan ... ...
-
BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC
...Tenth Circuit and Oklahoma law require a final judgment before a claim may be precluded, See MACTEC, 427 F.3d at 831;Doyle v. Smith, 202 P.3d 856, 864 (Okla.Civ.App.2009), and the result is the same under either. 5. Chesapeake does not argue that it was a prevailing party in the ...