Harmon v. Ingram
| Citation | 572 So.2d 411 |
| Parties | T.L. HARMON v. James E. INGRAM. 89-612. |
| Decision Date | 09 November 1990 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Tommie W. Fletcher, Pell City, for appellant.
Billy L. Church of Church, Trussell & Robinson, Pell City, for appellee.
James E. Ingram brought an action to quiet title to a 25-foot strip of real estate, ownership of which was claimed simultaneously by Mr. Ingram and T.L. Harmon. The Honorable H.E. Holladay, Circuit Judge of St. Clair County, sitting without a jury, entered judgment for Mr. Ingram. We affirm.
In 1914, W.N. Maddox conveyed to T.W. Elliott a tract of real estate located in Section 26, Township 17, Range 3 east, in St. Clair County near the old town of Easonville. The conveyance described the property conveyed in the following manner:
This two-acre tract, known as the "Lane," originally served as a means of access to a pecan orchard located in the north half of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 26.
In 1924, there was a conveyance made by T.W. Elliott to J.K. Spradley. Included in "Also a strip of land 25 feet in width running around the North and West side of said described W.N. Maddox lot and containing one (1) acre, more or less, and being fractional parts of the Northwest of the Southwest of Section 25, and Northeast of Southeast and Northwest of Southeast of Section 26...."
the deed was a conveyance, described in the following manner:
The deed from T.W. Elliott to J.K. Spradley, thus, specifically described only the eastern portion of the Lane, that portion defined as "running around the North and West side of the said described W.N. Maddox lot." It omitted the particular metes and bounds description of the western half of the Lane contained in the deed from Maddox to Elliott.
Sometime between 1924 and 1941, Mrs. J.K. Spradley deeded approximately one acre of land to the Willis family. The Willis acre was a narrow strip of land located along and north of the land line separating the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter from the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 26. The disputed western portion of the Lane, thus, lay to the south of, and adjacent to, the Willis acre. The Willises subsequently conveyed their land along the Lane to the W.D. Masters family, who, in 1959, deeded the acre to Mr. Harmon.
Meanwhile, in 1943, Mrs. J.K. Spradley gave to T.L. Harmon a deed conveying property described in terms virtually identical to those contained in the 1924 deed from Elliott to Spradley, with an express exception for the acre that she had previously conveyed to the Willis family. When Mr. Harmon eventually purchased the excepted area from the Masterses, he owned all of the land originally conveyed in the deed from T.W. Elliott to J.K. Spradley.
In July 1964, the water from Lake Logan Martin rose to cover the town of Easonville and most of the Lane. At that time, Mr. Harmon, who claimed to have used, for pasture, the eastern portion of the Lane since 1943 and the western portion since 1959, discontinued such use of the Lane and, thereafter, only occasionally visited the Lane to pick blackberries and to remove the vegetation from small portions of the Lane by the water's edge.
In 1971, Mavis Roper, James Ingram's sister, having purchased a tract of land to the south of and just across the lane from the former Masters lot, obtained a quitclaim deed to the western portion of the Lane from Lucille Elliott Maddox, the sole heir of T.W. Elliott. That deed described the Lane as follows:
"Beginning at the Southwest corner of the one & one-half acre W.N. Maddox Lot; thence North 25 feet to a point which is 25 feet north of the line between the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 & the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 26, Township 17 South, Range 3 East; thence West & parallel with said line to the line between the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 & the NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4; thence 45? to the left to a point which is 25 feet west of the southeast corner of the NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4; thence east along the south line of the NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 and along the south line of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 to the W.N. Maddox lot; all in Section 26, Township 17 South, Range 3 East, St. Clair County, Alabama."
On August 12, 1988, Mavis Roper, in a deed describing the Lane in identical terms, quitclaimed her interest in the property to Mr. Ingram.
In August 1988, Mr. Ingram entered the Lane to clear away a growth of brush and trees, and he encountered Mr. Harmon. At that time, the two men engaged in a disagreement regarding the ownership of the Lane; Mr. Ingram subsequently brought this action to quiet title. Mr. Harmon filed a counterclaim, contending that he had obtained ownership either through his chain of title or through a period of adverse possession extending from 1959.
The parties presented evidence ore tenus in a trial spanning two days. At the conclusion of the trial, the judge, accompanied by the parties and their respective counsel, visually inspected the property. Thereafter, the trial judge entered judgment in favor of Mr. Ingram. Mr. Harmon moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict Chain of Title
reasserting the contentions he had raised in his counterclaim. The judge denied that motion and Mr. Harmon has appealed pro se.
Mr. Harmon grounds his documentary claim to the Lane on his deed from his predecessor in title, Mrs. Spradley. Mr. Ingram contends that when T.W. Elliott conveyed property to J.K. Spradley, he granted only the eastern portion of the Lane and retained the western portion for himself. The legal issue, therefore, is whether the language of conveyance in the deed from T.W. Elliott to J.K. Spradley includes the disputed western portion. We hold that it does not.
" 'The universal test in fixing a boundary line is, first, natural objects, such as rivers, trees, and other objects of nature; second, artificial marks that were placed on the ground by the surveyor; and third, course and distance.' " Van Valkenburg v. Geron, 249 Ala. 467, 471, 31 So.2d 767, 770 (1947) (quoting Kyle v. Clinkscales, 22 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Tex.Civ.App.1929)). Thus, calls in a deed that refer to natural monuments predominate over those that refer to artificial landmarks. References to artificial landmarks, in turn, prevail over references to courses and distance.
In this case, however, we are not aided by references to any of these things. The only language in the deed that is alleged to refer to the western portion of the Lane merely refers to fractional portions of the "Northeast [quarter] of Southeast [quarter] and Northwest [quarter] of Southeast [quarter] of Section 26." It refers to no monuments, either artificial or natural, recites no courses or distance, and fixes no southern or northern boundaries for the Lane. Indeed, the only evidence indicating that the grantor may have intended to grant a portion of the Lane west of the W.N. Maddox lot is the vague reference to the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter.
Ordinarily, references to the quantity of acreage conveyed are construed as merely cumulative to more definite descriptions such as metes and bounds. Self v. Petty, 469 So.2d 568 (Ala.1985); Hill v. Johnson, 214 Ala. 194, 106 So. 814 (1925). However, in order to ascertain the intent of the grantor when more definite calls are ambiguous, inconsistent, or nonexistent, a court may resort to references to the quantity of acreage expressed in the conveyance. Chapman & Dewey Lumber Co. v. St. Francis Levee Dist., 232 U.S. 186, 34 S.Ct. 297, 58 L.Ed. 564 (1914); Wisconsin Realty Co. v. Lull, 177 Wis. 53, 187 N.W. 978 (1922). Indeed, where such ambiguity or inconsistency exists, the quantity call may control the case. Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund v. Wetstone, 222 So.2d 10 (Fla.1969); Brown v. Ray, 314 Ill. 570, 145 N.E. 676 (1924). We believe that this is such a case.
The conveyance from W.N. Maddox to T.W. Elliott assigned a quantity of two acres, "more or less," to the entire Lane, which included the disputed portion as it was enclosed by a line that The subsequent conveyance from Elliott to Spradley, however, assigned to the Lane only one acre, "more...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grubbs v. Crosson
...is evidence to support the conclusion that the Grubbses failed to meet their burden of establishing adverse possession. In Harmon v. Ingram, 572 So.2d 411 (Ala.1990), our supreme court discussed the order of preference as to references in a deed used to establish the boundary line. Referenc......