Moore v. Williams
| Decision Date | 29 January 1988 |
| Parties | Joseph F. MOORE, Jr., and Betty H. Moore v. Dianna F. WILLIAMS, et al. 86-1037. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William H. Saliba and Patricia A. Winston, Mobile, for appellants.
Harry B. Bailey III and James E. Atchison, Mobile, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Mobile County determining a boundary line between coterminous landowners. We affirm.
The plaintiffs, Joseph F. Moore, Jr., and Betty H. Moore, argue that they acquired title to a narrow strip of land owned by defendant Dianna F. Williams, by adversely possessing it. After a hearing, in which conflicting testimony was presented, the trial court found that they had not, and entered judgment in favor of Williams.
Where a trial court has heard ore tenus testimony, as in this case, its judgment based upon that testimony is presumed correct and will be reversed only if, after consideration of the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, the judgment is found to be plainly and palpably wrong. Furthermore, where a trial court does not make specific findings of fact concerning an issue, this Court will assume that the trial court made those findings necessary to support its judgment, unless such findings would be clearly erroneous. Robinson v. Hamilton, 496 So.2d 8 (Ala.1986).
We have reviewed the record. As previously stated, a hearing was held in which conflicting testimony was presented to the trial court concerning the plaintiffs' allegations. The trial court, without making specific findings of fact, ruled in defendant Williams's favor, setting the boundary line in accordance with a survey prepared by a registered land surveyor. We cannot say that the trial court's decision was plainly and palpably wrong; therefore, the judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elgin v. Alfa Corp.
...representation issue because the testimony in Roberts was ore tenus, although Roberts is unclear in this respect. See Moore v. Williams, 519 So.2d 1337 (Ala.1988) (stating the "abuse of discretion" standard used in reviewing a judgment based on ore tenus testimony); Ala.Code 1974, § 12-2-7(......
-
Samuel v. Mallory
...reverse a trial court's decision unless it is "plainly and palpably wrong." See, McInnis v. Lay, 533 So.2d 581 (Ala.1988); Moore v. Williams, 519 So.2d 1337 (Ala.1988); Parker v. Barnes, 519 So.2d 945 (Ala.1988). The basis of the appellees' motion to set the sale aside was that the sales pr......
-
McCrary v. Butler
...So.2d 8 (Ala.1986)." (Emphasis in original.) King v. Travelers Insurance Co., 513 So.2d 1023, 1026 (Ala.1987); see also Moore v. Williams, 519 So.2d 1337 (Ala.1988); Sims v. Sims, 502 So.2d 722 There is no arbitrary test as to whether a partnership exists, but such a determination will be m......
-
Wilson v. H. M. a., 2991400
...a trial court's decision unless it is `plainly and palpably wrong.' See, McInnis v. Lay, 533 So. 2d 581 (Ala. 1988); Moore v. Williams, 519 So. 2d 1337 (Ala. 1988); Parker v. Barnes, 519 So. 2d 945 (Ala. 1988)." Samuel v. Mallory, 553 So. 2d 119, 120 (Ala. Wilson and Hamler both argue that ......