Moore v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 18 November 1994 |
| Parties | Rayburn H. MOORE and Bonnie F. Moore v. Carroll EDWARDS and Linda Edwards. AV93000666. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Danny C. Lockhart, Birmingham, for appellants.
No briefs filed for appellees.
RICHARD L. HOLMES, Retired Appellate Judge.
This case involves a boundary line dispute between coterminous landowners in Walker County, Alabama.
Rayburn H. Moore and Bonnie F. Moore filed a complaint, wherein they requested that the trial court issue an order establishing the true common boundary line between their property and the property owned by Carroll Edwards and Linda Edwards.
The trial court held a hearing and issued an order establishing the boundary line.
Initially, we would note that in the trial court's order, the true and correct boundary line between the parties to this cause is described in two separate paragraphs of the order and that these descriptions differ. The first description states, in pertinent part:
"In order to find a point of beginning, commence at the SW corner of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 32, Township 14 South, Range 5 West, and run north along the west forty line of said forty 913.61 feet to a wooden post situated on said west line to the point of beginning of the boundary line to be described...."
(Emphasis added.)
The second description states, in pertinent part:
"In order to find a point of beginning, commence at the SW corner of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 32, Township 14 South, Range 6 West, and run north along the west forty line of said forty 285.61 feet to a wooden post situated on said west line to the point of beginning of the boundary line to be described...."
(Emphasis added.)
The Moores filed a post-judgment motion. The trial court failed to rule upon the motion, and it was denied by operation of law.
The Moores appeal. This case is before this court pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 12-2-7(6). We would note that the Edwardses have failed to favor this court with a brief on appeal.
The primary contention of the Moores on appeal is that, in light of the evidence presented at trial, the Edwardses are not entitled to any portion of that property which lies within the boundaries described in the deed dated December 21, 1987. The Moores base this contention upon their belief that the true boundary line between the parties is reflected in the December 21, 1987, deed.
It is well settled that when a trial court enters a judgment establishing the boundary line between coterminous landowners after an ore tenus hearing, such judgment is presumed correct, and it will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous or obviously unjust. Bushnell v. Martin, 553 So.2d 92 (Ala.1989). However, a trial court's order establishing the boundary line between coterminous landowners must be supported by credible evidence. Bushnell, 553 So.2d 92.
Our review of the record reveals the following pertinent facts: Patrick Willingham and Patricia B. Willingham conveyed certain real property to the Edwardses by warranty deed dated April 30, 1987. Alfred Andrew Barton and Carol G. Barton conveyed certain real property to the Moores by warranty deed dated December 21, 1987.
Carroll Edwards testified at the trial. He stated that the Willinghams never showed him or told him what they claimed as their property lines. In addition, he stated that he did not have the property surveyed at the time of purchase. Edwards testified that Mrs. Barton showed him the property lines prior to his purchase of the property. Edwards also testified that some time prior to December 1987, he had Larry Davis, a surveyor, draw a plat plan for him from the description contained in his deed.
Rayburn H. Moore also testified at the trial. He stated that the Bartons never showed him what they claimed as their property lines prior to the purchase of the property. In addition, he testified that he did not have the property surveyed at the time of purchase.
Donna Banks Willoughby testified at the trial that she and Moore are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanders v. Campbell
...the boundary line between coterminous landowners must be supported by credible evidence. Bushnell, 553 So.2d 92.”Moore v. Edwards, 651 So.2d 31, 33 (Ala.Civ.App.1994). Furthermore,“ ‘[b]oundary disputes are subject to a unique set of requirements that is a hybrid of the elements of adverse ......