Roberts v. Mitchell
Decision Date | 26 August 1983 |
Parties | Lessie ROBERTS and Faye Roberts v. A.E. MITCHELL, et al. 82-287. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
George C. Simpson, Lineville, for appellants.
John E. Rochester of Thompson & Rochester, Ashland, for appellees.
This case concerns a coterminous boundary line dispute. The disputed strip of land is roughly 400 feet long and varies in width up to approximately 12 feet. The trial court, after hearing evidence presented ore tenus, found that the plaintiffs, Lessie Roberts and Faye Roberts, had not met their burden of proving adverse possession of the disputed strip of land and entered a judgment quieting title in the defendant, A.E. Mitchell. The plaintiffs appealed. We reverse and remand.
Issues presented for review include whether the plaintiffs provided evidence to the trial court to establish that they had acquired title to the property in question through adverse possession. Secondly, if plaintiffs did acquire title, whether the defendant divested them of this title through his adverse possession of the disputed land following his purchase of the adjoining property.
It was stipulated by the parties that the plaintiffs' claim of ownership to the property in dispute was solely an adverse possession claim. The plaintiffs do not have deed or record title to the property. Further, it was undisputed that the defendant does have record title to the property.
The plaintiffs introduced evidence at the trial that James Edward McCain, the father of Lessie Roberts, bought a parcel of land in or about 1917. Lessie Roberts also testified that soon after her father acquired the property, he dug a ditch across the property to establish the northwest boundary line which joined the defendant's south boundary. Further evidence established that this land was cultivated by Mr. McCain and by other family members until approximately 1944. Plaintiffs contend that a gravel driveway constructed by the defendant some years after he purchased the property covered the previous location of the ditch. The plaintiffs claim that their property, due to the open continuous use by the family, extends up to, but not including, what is now the gravel driveway.
The defendant, on the other hand, asserts that the boundary line is several feet south of the gravel driveway, on property claimed by the plaintiffs. Mitchell purchased a parcel of real property on March 8, 1958, adjacent to the Robertses' land. Mr. Mitchell later filed the deed which conveyed the property to him in the probate office. At the time Mr. Mitchell acquired the property, he discussed the location of the boundary line with the previous owner, Mrs. Aby Marlar. According to Mrs. Marlar, the location of Mr. Mitchell's property line was 10 to 12 feet south of the driveway.
The boundary line was not questioned until 1981 when the defendant, Mitchell, cut a tree on the disputed strip of land. Mr. Mitchell's action prompted the plaintiffs to have the property surveyed. The surveyor determined the correct boundary line to be south of the gravel driveway in the location which the previous owner had indicated to Mr. Mitchell. This location also corresponded to the property description in Mr. Mitchell's deed. Following the survey, the plaintiffs instituted this action to obtain the strip of land by adverse possession.
The first issue is whether plaintiffs proved adverse possession of the land. The rule of adverse possession in Alabama is that a coterminous landowner may acquire title by holding actual possession of a disputed strip under a claim of right openly and continuously for a period of ten years. Rutland v. Georgia Kraft Company, 387 So.2d 836, 837 (Ala.1980). Cultivation of land is a sufficient possessory act to meet the requirements of adverse possession. Cambron v. Kirkland, 287 Ala. 531, 253 So.2d 180 (1971). The evidence presented by the plaintiffs, which was not disputed by the defendant, showed that after the ditch was dug by Lessie Roberts's father to establish the boundary line, the land was cultivated up to the ditch for a period of approximately 27 years.
Portions of Lessie Roberts's testimony are set out below:
The following testimony by Naomi Burroughs, sister of Lessie Roberts, established the use of the property:
The testimony of George Lowell McCain, brother of Lessie Roberts, shows that the farming continued until at least 1944:
The standard of proof was quoted in the trial court's order:
"
The trial court applied the Casey standard to the plaintiffs' adverse possession claim and found that they failed to meet their burden of proof, stating:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Salter v. Hamiter
...she did not own the land. The trial court's findings in disregard of this undisputed evidence are clearly erroneous. See Roberts v. Mitchell, 437 So.2d 512 (Ala.1983). The present case is distinguishable from Walker in two significant respects. This Court noted in Walker that the grantor an......
-
Crowden v. Grantland
...Neal family, they did not have to continue adversely possessing the property in order to retain title to the property. Roberts v. Mitchell, 437 So.2d 512 (Ala.1983). The Neal family's title could be divested only by their conveying the property or by losing the property to another adverse p......
-
Lee v. Brown
...rests upon the party asserting adverse possession, and every presumption is in favor of the holder of legal title. Roberts v. Mitchell, 437 So.2d 512, 514 (Ala.1983). Defendant presented evidence that he cut hay on plaintiffs' eastern property and that in plaintiffs' northern property he ha......