May v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 26 April 1985 |
| Citation | 470 So.2d 1188 |
| Parties | Lillie MAY, et al. v. Woodrow CAMPBELL, et al. 83-1302. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Fred W. Teague, Ashville, for appellants.
Hugh E. Holladay of Hereford, Blair & Holladay, Pell City, for appellees.
This appeal arose out of a property ownership dispute in St. Clair County.
Lillie May; Ledell May; Georgia Mae Gowens; Roseus Gowens; Ruth Bellamy; Riley Bellamy; and Nancy Williams, as the heirs at law of Hulda Brown, deceased, brought this action in the nature of a bill to quiet title against Woodrow and Carolyn Campbell. The heirs of Brown also instituted this action against the unknown heirs of Thomas Brown, James Brown, Mary Edwards, Dora Lackey, Sybatha Brown, and Hulda Brown. The court appointed a guardian ad litem to protect the unknown heirs' interests.
The Campbells counterclaimed, seeking a declaration that they owned the land. The trial court, after hearing conflicting ore tenus evidence, quieted title in favor of the Campbells.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in its determination of ownership of the property in question. We affirm.
Sometime around 1917, Hulda and Tobe Brown took possession of the subject property on Morning Star Hill in Ragland, Alabama. On March 7, 1934, C.G. Davis and his wife, Liza Davis, conveyed that property by deed to Hulda Brown, the deed describing the land as follows:
"Commencing at corner of M. Truss lot, run East 70 years, thence North 110 yards to county road, thence 70 yards West along said road, thence 127 yards to beginning point, and being part of the Northwest Quarter, Section 17, Township 15, Range 5 East; and Ten acres adjoining the above described lands lying North of it; all of which is part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 17, Township 15, Range 5, East. Containing in all twelve acres more or less."
This deed was recorded in 1951.
The evidence presented by the heirs of Hulda Brown indicate that from around 1917 until sometime where in the 1950's the property was used for residential purposes, farming, and pasture land. When Hulda Brown became unable to farm the land, it grew up in timber. After Hulda Brown's death in 1961, her children occupied the homeplace, but did not farm the land. In 1975 a mobile home was placed on a two-acre tract of land across the county road from the homeplace on which Ruth and Riley Bellamy reside.
The ownership of the land upon which the homeplace and mobile home are situated is not contested by the Campbells. The property dispute in question relates only to the property described in the deed to Hulda Brown as "ten acres adjoining the above described land and lying North of it." The heirs of Hulda Brown contend that this property is the same as that claimed by the Campbells.
The Campbells, on the other hand, claim that they own fee simple title to the land conveyed to them by warranty deed from James S. Smith and wife, Jessie Dean Smith, on April 4, 1972; described as follows:
"The West 12 acres of the N 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 17, Township 15 South, Range 5 East, less and except the lands heretofore conveyed."
The Campbells claim that upon obtaining the deed they immediately took possession of the land, and they claim to have adversely possessed the land for over 10 years.
The trial court, sitting without a jury, heard all of the testimony, reviewed the documentary evidence, had the parties each submit an abstract of title regarding the property, and, together with the attorneys, inspected the property in dispute. The trial court thereafter awarded the Campbells the property described in their deed and found "that the property contains 7 acres more or less as shown by the survey of L.F. McGinnis, dated September 20, 1975." The trial court also determined that the heirs of Hulda Brown, and the unknown defendant heirs, "are the owners of all other lands described in the complaint and the complaint as amended." The court thereafter set the boundary between the plaintiffs' and the Campbells' property and ordered monuments placed to fix the boundaries.
The heirs claimed that their title is superior to that of the Campbells and that the trial court erred in finding that the Campbells were the owners of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dickinson v. Suggs
...; Wallace v. [Putman ], 495 So.2d 1072 (Ala.1986) ; Drennen Land & Timber Co. v. Angell, 475 So.2d 1166 (Ala.1985) ; May v. Campbell, 470 So.2d 1188 (Ala.1985).”Bearden v. Ellison, 560 So.2d 1042, 1043–44 (Ala.1990). The presumption of correctness afforded a trial court's judgment regarding......
-
Kershaw v. Knox Kershaw, Inc.
...411 So.2d 134 (Ala.1982). Further, the presumption of correctness exists even though there may be conflicting evidence. See May v. Campbell, 470 So.2d 1188 (Ala.1985); Alabama Farm Bureau Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Moore, 435 So.2d 712 (Ala.1983). Because reasonable minds could differ as to whet......
-
Williams v. White
...; Wallace v. Putman, 495 So.2d 1072 (Ala.1986) ; Drennen Land & Timber Co. v. Angell, 475 So.2d 1166 (Ala.1985) ; May v. Campbell, 470 So.2d 1188 (Ala.1985)."Bearden v. Ellison, 560 So.2d 1042, 1043–44 (Ala.1990). Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Alabama Republican Party v. McGinley, ......
-
Bearden v. Ellison
...(Ala.1986); Wallace v. Putnam, 495 So.2d 1072 (Ala.1986); Drennen Land & Timber Co. v. Angell, 475 So.2d 1166 (Ala.1985); May v. Campbell, 470 So.2d 1188 (Ala.1985). A boundary line dispute is subject to a unique set of requirements that is a hybrid of the elements of statutory adverse poss......