Francis v. Tucker
Decision Date | 14 January 1977 |
Citation | 341 So.2d 710 |
Parties | Sarah E. FRANCIS v. Onnie E. TUCKER and Barbara Lee Tucker. SC 1846. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Sherman B. Powell, Decatur, for appellant.
James C. Francis, Decatur, for appellees.
Sarah E. Francis, plaintiff below, appeals from an adverse decree in a boundary line dispute case between herself and Onnie E. and Barbara Lee Tucker, as coterminous land owners. We affirm.
The boundary line in question is the south line of the Tucker property and the north line of part of the Francis property, i.e., the boundary line that separates the back yards of these two neighbors. The controversy arose due to a 20-foot overlap in the legal descriptions of the two respective deeds.
Mrs. Francis, who acquired her lot through an aunt and who had been acquainted with the property for about 30 years before moving away to Massachusetts in 1965, testified that her north line was marked by a fence and fence row; that, although the fence, in substantial part, was gone when she returned to her home in Hartselle in 1972, she did not observe the Tuckers using the property south of the old fence row line until the Tuckers had their south line surveyed in accordance with their deed shortly before the dispute that culminated in the law suit.
Mrs. Tucker testified that she and her husband had been in continuous, actual, and open possession of the entire tract of land described in their deed (showing a 110-foot depth) since acquiring title in 1960, including the 20-foot disputed strip; that the fence referred to by Mrs. Francis was gone before she and her husband moved onto the property; that she had cut the grass and planted a garden in the area south of the old fence line during all the time since they moved there in 1960; and that no one had made any claim or said anything about any portion of the property which the Tuckers were using and claiming as their own until this suit was filed.
The only issue raised by Mrs. Francis on this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. A more detailed recital of the evidence would serve no useful purpose. Suffice it to say, the evidence was in sharp conflict; and the trial Judge had to make a decision. The legal issues are neither complicated nor in serious dispute. If the trial Court found the facts as testified to by the Tuckers, their right to prevail, as a matter of law, is well established. Varner v. Carr, 291 Ala. 654, 286 So.2d 294 (1973); Guy v. Lancaster, 250 Ala. 287, 34 So.2d 499 (1948).
Our ore tenus scope of review rule hardly needs repeating nor authority cited to mandate our affirmance of the trial Court's decree fixing the line in accordance with the Tuckers' deed of conveyance. It is an oft stated rule that a decree establishing a boundary line need not be supported by a preponderance of evidence. If, under any reasonable aspect of the case, the decree is supported by credible evidence, it is due to be affirmed unless palpably wrong or manifestly unjust. The only weight of the evidence rule invoked by our cases is where the 'great or decided preponderance of evidence against the decree' test is applied in determining whether, though supported by some credible evidence, the decree is palpably wrong or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sparks v. Byrd
...for more than 20 years. STANDARD OF REVIEW The applicable standard for review in boundary line cases was stated in Francis v. Tucker, 341 So.2d 710, 711-12 (Ala.1977), in which this Court stated the "It is an oft stated rule that a decree establishing a boundary line need not be supported b......
-
Ex parte James
...Vaughn is based on Securitronics of America, Inc. v. Bruno's, Inc., 414 So.2d 950 (Ala.1982). Securitronics followed Francis v. Tucker, 341 So.2d 710 (Ala. 1977), a decision grounded upon an analysis of a pre-Rules decision, Baker v. Citizens Bank of Guntersville, 282 Ala. 33, 208 So.2d 601......
-
Pinson v. Veach
...there is a clear and decided preponderance of the evidence against its judgment. Kirby v. Jones, 370 So.2d 250 (Ala.1979); Francis v. Tucker, 341 So.2d 710 (Ala.1977). (Emphasis 382 So.2d at 562. The trial judge decided to leave the boundary at the point described in both the appellants' an......
-
Acker v. Protective Life Ins. Co.
...by credible evidence, unless it is palpably wrong and manifestly unjust. Robertson v. Fincher, 348 So.2d 466 (Ala.1977); Francis v. Tucker, 341 So.2d 710 (Ala.1977), and Alabama Power Co. v. Martin, 341 So.2d 695 Support for the trial Court's decree is manifest on the record. The several Ap......