Green v. Poirrier Props. L.L.C.

• Decision Date: 02 August 2022
• Docket Number: 2021-CP-00704-COA
• Citation: 344 So.3d 318
• Parties: Carnell GREEN, Appellant v. POIRRIER PROPERTIES L.L.C. and Poirrier Farms, Inc., Appellees
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

344 So.3d 318

Carnell GREEN, Appellant
v.
POIRRIER PROPERTIES L.L.C. and Poirrier Farms, Inc., Appellees

NO. 2021-CP-00704-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

August 2, 2022

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CARNELL GREEN (PRO SE)

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: CHRISTOPHER ERIC KELLEY, Natchez

BEFORE BARNES, C.J., GREENLEE AND LAWRENCE, JJ.

GREENLEE, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Carnell Green appeals from the judgment of the Amite County Chancery Court in favor of Poirrier Properties L.L.C. and Poirrier Farms, Inc. (Poirrier). We affirm the chancellor's judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. In August 2013, Poirrier filed a complaint against Green and several other defendants alleging that on or about September 19, 2012, the defendants entered on its

344 So.3d 321

property in Amite County without right, title, or consent and cut down, deadened, destroyed, and took away timber without consent. Poirrier later stipulated that the only interested parties in the matter before the chancellor were Poirrier and Green. According to a survey, Poirrier's property in Amite County was adjacent to Green's property in Wilkinson County. Green's property was located to the west of a creek that ran from north to south, and Poirrier's property was situated to the east. A portion of timber ran along both sides of the creek. The timber (totaling approximately 5 acres) and land on which the timber was situated was in dispute. Most of the disputed timber was on the southwestern side of the creek, and a smaller portion of timber was located on the northeastern side of the creek. Throughout the proceedings in the chancery court, the parties also seemingly disputed the exact location of the Amite/Wilkinson county line, which was ultimately established as the boundary line dividing the two properties.

¶3. Green filed an answer denying the allegations in the complaint and later filed an amended answer and counterclaim. In his counterclaim, Green asserted that his property line extended to a fence that had been erected decades earlier and suggested that the disputed timber was located on his side of the fence. Green also suggested that he had acquired title to the property on which the disputed timber was situated by adverse possession. Green asked the chancellor to prevent Poirrier from asserting any right, title, or estate of any nature to the property and asked the chancellor to permanently enjoin Poirrier from trespassing on the property.

¶4. In February 2019, Poirrier filed an amended complaint in which it asserted a timber-trespass claim, asked the chancellor to remove any cloud on title, and asked the chancellor to determine the heirship of Tom and Laura Green (Green's parents) to ensure that all necessary parties were before the court.

¶5. In April 2021, the chancellor held a hearing. Poirrier called several witnesses, including Green (who was called as an adverse witness). Green testified that his parents purchased the property in Wilkinson County decades earlier and that throughout the years the property had been used for farming, hunting, and fishing. Green suggested that his father had shown him the boundary lines on the property before his death and suggested that the boundary line between his property and Poirrier's property was the Amite/Wilkinson county line. However, Green seemingly believed that no portion of Amite County extended west of the creek, and therefore Poirrier had no right to the disputed timber or property located west of the creek. Green also believed that a fence on the east side of the creek was located on his property, and therefore...