Robinson v. Hamilton
Decision Date | 26 September 1986 |
Parties | Henry Hollis ROBINSON and Sarah W. Robinson v. Ralph M. HAMILTON and Sybil I. Hamilton. 85-209. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William R. Hovater of Stolsworth & Hovater, Tuscumbia, for appellants.
Murray Beasley, Tuscumbia, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment in the Circuit Court of Colbert County determining a boundary line between coterminous landowners. We affirm.
The plaintiffs, Ralph and Sybil Hamilton have been next-door neighbors of the defendants, Henry and Sarah Robinson, for over 20 years. The defendants originally purchased a 3.56-acre tract from Sybil Hamilton's father and later sold the east half of that tract to the plaintiffs. An appendix to this opinion shows a plat of a survey, ordered by the trial court, which shows the common boundary between the parties in accordance with the description set out in the plaintiff's deed.
The defendants introduced testimony which tended to show the following: The iron rod shown on the plat was driven down by Sybil Hamilton's father in 1962 at the point where he thought the line separating the tracts was located. The defendants always believed that that iron rod marked the boundary between themselves and the plaintiffs. Consequently, the defendants planted four fruit trees and a portion of their summer garden over on the plaintiffs' property (see survey). Both the garden (when in season) and the fruit trees have been maintained by the defendants. The defendants also ran their underground septic tank field lines onto the plaintiffs' property at the time they built their house in 1962.
The plaintiffs' testimony tended to show that the boundary in dispute was, and had always been represented, as shown in the survey. Ralph Hamilton testified that he gave the defendants permission in 1962 to use a portion of his property for gardening and that he never withdrew it.
The defendants' sole contention is that they adversely possessed that strip of the plaintiffs' property extending up to the iron rod and thereby reestablished the common boundary.
The trial court's judgment, in pertinent part, reads as follows:
The issue that we must determine is whether the judgment of the trial court establishing the survey line as the true boundary was contrary to the weight of the evidence and the law.
At this point, we should note that 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. Thompson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 460 So.2d 1264 (Ala.1984). 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. Thomas v. Davis, 410 So.2d 889 (Ala.1982).
A boundary dispute is subject to a unique set of requirements that is a hybrid of the elements of adverse possession by prescription and statutory adverse possession. In such a dispute, coterminous landowners may alter the boundary line between their tracts by agreement plus possession for ten years or by adverse possession for ten years. Kerlin v. Tensaw Land & Timber Co., 390 So.2d 616 (Ala.1980).
In Mardis v. Nichols, 393 So.2d 976 (Ala.1981), the Court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woodland Grove Baptist Church v. Cemetery
...unless such findings are clearly erroneous." Sundance Marina, Inc. v. Reach, 567 So.2d 1322, 1324 (Ala. 1990) (citing Robinson v. Hamilton, 496 So.2d 8 (Ala.1986)). The trial court had to conclude that the Church's possession was peaceable and not scrambling; otherwise, it could not have pr......
-
Wilson v. Wehunt
...we hold that its ruling shifting the burden of proof to the defendant on this issue was plainly and palpably wrong. Robinson v. Hamilton, 496 So.2d 8 (Ala.1986). Mental The trial court found that Ms. Wilson had "suffered from intermittent periods of incompetency and that such periods [had] ......
-
Dickinson v. Suggs
...Sansing Sales of Birmingham, Inc., 547 So.2d 464 (Ala.1989) ; King v. Travelers Ins. Co., 513 So.2d 1023 (Ala.198[7] ) ; Robinson v. Hamilton, 496 So.2d 8 (Ala.1986) ; see, also, Meeks v. Hill, 557 So.2d 1238 (Ala.1990). The trial court's judgment will be affirmed if there is credible evide......
-
Williams v. White
...v. Sansing Sales of Birmingham, Inc., 547 So.2d 464 (Ala.1989) ; King v. Travelers Ins. Co., 513 So.2d 1023 (Ala.198[7]) ; Robinson v. Hamilton, 496 So.2d 8 (Ala.1986) ; see, also, Meeks v. Hill, 557 So.2d 1238 (Ala.1990). The trial court's judgment will be affirmed if there is credible evi......