Hagler v. Clark
| Decision Date | 03 September 1976 |
| Citation | 337 So.2d 327 |
| Parties | James G. (Ben) HAGLER v. Maudie E. CLARK et al. SC 1363. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
McDuffie & Holcombe, Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Turner, Turner & Turner, Tuscaloosa, for appellees.
This case involves a boundary line dispute and the question of adverse possession of a disputed strip of land. The disputed strip is between an established quarter section line, which is one of the boundaries specified in the respective deeds to both parties, and an old hedgerow, which appellees claim is the correct boundary line. The trial judge, after hearing the evidence ore tenus, found that appellees had claimed to own to the hedgerow for more than ten years and had held actual, open and exclusive possession to the hedgerow continuously for more than ten years. He, therefore, concluded that the boundary line was located at the hedgerow. From the final judgment of the trial court, appellant brings this appeal.
The property of Maudie E. Clark, one of the appellees, lies south of the property of James G. (Ben) Hagler, the appellant.
In 1905 Henry Clarence May owned the property now owned by the appellees. A Mr. Darden owned the property now owned by the appellant. Darden and May put up a fence seventy and seven-tenths (70.7) feet north of the government survey line. The area between the government survey line and the old fence and hedgerow is the area in dispute.
Appellee Clark bought her property in 1946 from Dr. J. E. Shirley. She testified that at the time of purchase, the old fence and hedgerow were pointed out to her as the north line and that the hedgerow remained undisturbed as the dividing line until about 1971 when appellant took it down. Appellee Clark put a fence back where the old hedgerow had been located. The fence remained until 1973 when appellant again removed the fence, and this suit by appellees resulted.
Appellees went into possession of the property in 1946, occupying up to the hedgerow. They farmed the property for a while and then grazed cattle on it.
Appellant bought the property north of the appellees in about 1950 or 1951. He testified that when he first bought the property he bought it as 'a forty' without paying much attention to the boundary lines. His deed named the quarter lines as boundary lines but only the north line going east and west had been surveyed. Shortly after he bought the property, it was brought to his attention that the boundary lines as he knew them were incorrect. This was later confirmed when a Mr. Hendrix surveyed some of the property in the area. Mr. Hendrix testified that the survey demonstrated that each parcel had been moved north by using fences and roads a long time ago. He further testified that if the old hedgerow was established as the line for the appellees, they would lose a corresponding amount of land on the south side of their property. The survey had shown that if the appellees' land started at the section on the north and ran south, the south corner would be over in somebody else's garage fifteen feet or more.
The evidence revealed that at some point after appellant became aware of the boundary dispute, he approached appellee Clark and discussed the situation with her and her husband. At this time appellant also owned the property to the south of the appellees. He offered to swap the disputed strip on the north end of the appellees' property in exchange for an equal sized strip on the south end of the appellees' property. The appellees declined the offer.
According to the testimony, the next time the boundary lines were discussed was in 1965. At that time appellee Clark asked appellant for a quitclaim deed to the disputed area and appellant refused to give her one.
Appellant maintains that the evidence in this case and the law of Alabama do not support the ruling of the trial court that appellee acquired title to the disputed tract of land by holding actual and exclusive possession for more than ten years. We disagree.
'If a coterminous landowner holds actual possession of a disputed strip under a claim of right openly and exclusively for a continuous period of ten years, believing that he is holding to the true line, he thereby acquires title up to that line, even though the belief as to the correct location originated in a mistake, and it is immaterial what he might or might not have claimed had he known he was mistaken.' (Citations omitted.) Sylvest v. Stowers, 276 Ala. 695, 697, 166 So.2d 423, 426 (1964).
'The rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayes v. Cotter
...and claims property as his own, whether by mistake or willfully." Reynolds v. Rutland, 365 So.2d 656, 657-658 (Ala.1978); Hagler v. Clark, 337 So.2d 327, 329 (Ala.1976); Smith v. Brown, 282 Ala. 528, 535, 213 So.2d 374, 380 (1968). The plaintiffs in the instant case produced numerous witnes......
-
Moore v. Johnson
...and claims property as his own, whether by mistake or willfully." Reynolds v. Rutland, 365 So.2d 656, 657-658 (Ala.1978); Hagler v. Clark, 337 So.2d 327, 329 (Ala.1976); Smith v. Brown, 282 Ala. 528, 535, 213 So.2d 374, 380 439 So.2d at 104. In this case, Johnson attempted to make out his a......
-
Snider v. Shirley
...for many, many years. It is this same fence and hedgerow which were involved in litigation between other coterminous owners in Hagler v. Clark, Ala., 337 So.2d 327, decided September 3, This litigation was begun when Mrs. Margaret Shirley Koster filed suit against Lizzie B. Snider and Arlo ......