Reynolds v. Rutland
| Decision Date | 22 December 1978 |
| Citation | 365 So.2d 656 |
| Parties | Don REYNOLDS v. Mrs. B. I. RUTLAND et al. 77-422. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Bryce U. Graham, Tuscumbia, Steve R. Graham, Florence, for appellant.
Murray W. Beasley, Tuscumbia, for appellees.
This appeal involves a boundary line dispute between coterminous owners of real property. Appellees filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Colbert County, seeking to have the court establish and define the true boundary line between the properties of the parties.
In their complaint, Appellees contend that they are owners of property being described as follows:
The NW 1/4 of Section 36, Township 4 South, Range 13 West . . . .
The complaint alleged that Appellant owned the property described as follows:
The East 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 36, Township 4 South, Range 13 West . . . .
Appellees contend that the dividing line between the properties was uncertain and disputed, and sought an order defining the true boundary line between the properties. An Ore tenus hearing was held and the trial Judge rendered a final decree in which he found that the joint corner (the SE corner of Appellees' property and the NE corner of Appellant's property) between the two lots was marked by a rock pile with an iron pin located therein. Furthermore, the trial Court found that the boundary line ran from this point and was marked by blazed trees. Although the line as established by the trial Court was approximately 60 feet south of the quarter-section line, defined in the parties' deeds as being the boundary between the parcels, the trial Court held that Appellees had adversely possessed to the line of blazed trees in open, adverse, notorious possession for more than 10 years.
The Appellant contends there was not sufficient evidence to support the trial Court in its adverse possession ruling. Additionally, Appellant contends that the trial Court failed to establish and describe the boundary line with sufficient certainty to resolve the dispute.
In Smith v. Brown, 282 Ala. 528, 213 So.2d 374 (1968), it was held that, if a coterminous landowner holds actual possession of a disputed strip under claim of right, openly and exclusively for a continuous period of 10 years, believing that he is holding to the true line, he will acquire title to that line, even though the belief as to the correct location of the line originated in a mistake. It is immaterial what he might or might not have claimed had he known he was mistaken. While intent to claim the disputed strip is required, there is no requirement that the intent be to claim property of another, as such a rule would make adverse...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sparks v. Byrd
...adverse possessor's intent to assert dominion over the property that causes his possession to be deemed "hostile." See Reynolds v. Rutland, 365 So.2d 656 (Ala.1978); Guy v. Lancaster, 250 Ala. 287, 34 So.2d 499 (1948); Whitlow v. Moore, 246 Ala. 472, 21 So.2d 253 (1945). Furthermore, in add......
-
Littleton v. Wells
...line between their tracts of land by agreement plus possession for ten years, or by adverse possession for ten years. SeeReynolds v. Rutland, 365 So.2d 656 (Ala. 1978) ; Carpenter v. Huffman, 294 Ala. 189, 314 So.2d 65 (1975) ; Smith v. Brown, 282 Ala. 528, 213 So.2d 374 (1968) ; Lay v. Phi......
-
Dungan v. Early
...the Earlys might or might not have claimed had they known they were mistaken. 282 Ala. at 535, 213 So.2d at 380. See Reynolds v. Rutland, 365 So.2d 656, 658 (Ala.1978) (concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support adverse possession in a boundary-line dispute when the a review of ......
-
Parker v. Rhoades
...line between their tracts of land by agreement plus possession for ten years, or by adverse possession for ten years. SeeReynolds v. Rutland, 365 So.2d 656 (Ala. 1978) ; Carpenter v. Huffman, 294 Ala. 189, 314 So.2d 65 (1975) ; Smith v. Brown, 282 Ala. 528, 213 So.2d 374 (1968) ; Lay v. Phi......