Ratliff v. Giorlando
| Decision Date | 11 March 1977 |
| Citation | 343 So.2d 506 |
| Parties | Howard RATLIFF and wife, Hazel Ratliff v. Charles H. GIORLANDO and wife, Mary Ann Giorlando. SC 1789. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
B. J. McPherson, Oneonta, for appellants.
Billy L. Church for Church, Trussell & Robinson, Pell City, for appellees.
Appellants, Howard and Hazel Ratliff, filed this action asking the court to declare that the southern boundary line of their property as described in the complaint is the true boundary line separating their property from that of the appellees, Charles and Mary Ann Giorlando. The plaintiffs claimed that they had acquired, through adverse possession, a portion of the adjacent property of which the Giorlandos hold paper title, amounting to nearly ten acres. The plaintiffs also sought $7,500 in damages as the result of the removal of fencing, destruction of timber, and other encroachments by the Giorlandos on that portion of property which the Ratliffs claim by adverse possession. After hearing evidence from both sides and viewing the property, the trial court entered its judgment denying the relief requested. The judgment, in part, provides:
'That upon a view of the property, this Court was not able to ascertain any evidence of an established line or possession line described as the south property line as set out in said complaint.
'The property set out in said complaint are wild lands and this Court does not find that there was clear and convincing testimony establishing title to said lands in the plaintiffs by adverse possession.
'. . .
'. . . It is therefore further ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the relief prayed for in said complaint be and same is hereby denied.'
The Ratliffs appealed contending that the evidence clearly established that they complied with the requirements for adverse possession and, in so doing, were entitled to a judgment recognizing their title to the controverted parcel. The Ratliffs also contend that the trial court erred by failing to establish a boundary line in its judgment.
We must first decide whether the trial court erred in concluding that the Ratliffs failed to establish by the evidence that they had acquired title to the disputed property by adverse possession. The burden is on the party claiming title by adverse possession to establish, by the evidence, title acquired against the record titleholder. McCulloch v. Roberts, 290 Ala. 303, 276 So.2d 425 (1973); M. C. Dixon Lumber Co. v. Mathison, 289 Ala. 229, 266 So.2d 841 (1972); James v. Mizell, 289 Ala. 84, 265 So.2d 866 (1972). Thus, the Ratliffs had the burden of proving that they had maintained actual possession of the disputed strip under a claim or right openly and exclusively for a continuous period of ten years. Casey v. Keeney, 290 Ala. 94, 274 So.2d 68 (1973); Barnett v. Millis, 286 Ala. 681, 684, 246 So.2d 78 (1971). 1 To constitute actual possession, this court has held that '. . . '. . . it is only necessary to put it to such use or exercise such dominion over it as in its present state it is reasonably adapted to.' . . . ' Moore v. Malone, 248 Ala. 76, 78, 26 So.2d 558 (1946), quoting from Alabama State Land Co. v. Matthews, 168 Ala. 200, 53 So. 174, 175 (1910). Moreover, questions of adverse possession are questions of fact to be determined by the trial court. Barnett v. Millis, supra. And, of course, where the evidence is taken orally, as here, the trial court's determination of this question of fact is presumed to be correct and cannot be disturbed on appeal unless plainly erroneous or manifestly unjust. Barnett v. Millis, supra; Butts v. Lancaster, 279 Ala. 589, 188 So.2d 548 (1966).
The evidence in this case was in sharp conflict. Mr. Ratliff testified that he had claimed this land up to a hedgerow since 1958. Others testified to the contrary. The defendants specifically denied the plaintiff's testimony and denied that a hedgerow existed.
After hearing all of the evidence, the trial court made an actual view of the property in controversy. In its judgment the court stated that, based upon its view of the property, it was '. . . not able to ascertain any evidence of an established line or possession line . . .' as described in the complaint. The court concluded that the Ratliffs failed to establish, by adverse...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Courtney v. Boykin
...findings of fact are presumed correct and will not be disturbed on appeal unless palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust. Ratliff v. Giorlando, 343 So.2d 506 (Ala.1977). We are also aware that a fact-finding based on evidence which is insufficient as a matter of law to establish adverse pos......
-
Storey v. Patterson
...that even if we did disagree with the trial judge on his findings of fact, we would not substitute our judgment for his. Ratliff v. Giorlando, 343 So.2d 506 (Ala.1977). There is also disputed testimony as to the use of the claimed strip of land. Storey claims to have used the same area as a......
-
Water Works & Sanitary Sewer Bd. v. Parks
...by the trial court," and we have declined to reach such questions when the trial court has not addressed them first. Ratliff v. Giorlando, 343 So.2d 506, 508 (Ala.1977); see also Barnett v. Estate of Anderson, 966 So.2d 915, 920 (Ala.2007) ("We decline to review an issue ... that was not co......
-
Darby v. Robbins
...in opposition to legal title. In an adverse possession case, the burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts it, Ratcliff v. Giorlando, 343 So.2d 506, Ala.Sup. (1977), to prove that the possession is actual, hostile, open, notorious, exclusive and continuous for the statutory period. S......