Santos v. Simon
| Decision Date | 14 June 1943 |
| Docket Number | Civil 4576 |
| Citation | 60 Ariz. 426,138 P.2d 896 |
| Parties | ENCARNACION SANTOS and LUCY SANTOS, Husband and Wife, Appellants, v. ROBERT R. SIMON, Appellee |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Navajo. John P. Clark, Judge. Judgment reversed and cause remanded with directions.
Mr Dodd L. Greer, for Appellants.
Mr. C D. McCauley and Mr. P. H. Brooks, for Appellee.
Robert R. Simon, the owner of Lot 4 of Block 123, Kleindienst Addition to the City of Winslow, Navajo County, Arizona brought this action against Encarnacion and Lucy Santos husband and wife, owners of record of Lots 1, 2 and 3 of said Block 123, to establish and quiet his title to a portion, 18.5 feet by 50 feet, of Lot 3. He alleges that he and his predecessors in interest "have maintained a residential structure, consisting of an adobe house, garage and board fence, upon Lot 4 and" the portion of Lot 3 mentioned, and that their possession has been peaceable, continuous and adverse for ten years last past. He seeks to have his prescriptive title quieted to said piece of land and also to have it decreed that he is entitled to an easement over other portions of said Lot 3 for the purposes of ingress and egress.
The defendants' answer is that they not only are the owners of said Lot 3 but have been in the peaceable and adverse possession thereof, using and enjoying the same, for more than ten years last past. They also allege they have a recorded deed of said property and, under such allegation submitted in evidence, without objection, a tax deed to themselves from the Board of Supervisors of Navajo County, dated March 7, 1939, for said Lots 1, 2 and 3.
The case was tried by the court without a jury and judgment went for plaintiff granting him his full prayer. The defendants have appealed.
There is no brief for plaintiff.
The action was brought under the provisions of section 29-103, Arizona Code 1939, reading:
"Any person having a right of action for recovery of any lands, tenements or hereditaments against another having peaceable and adverse possession thereof, cultivating, using and enjoying the same, shall institute his action therefor within ten (10) years next after his cause of action has accrued, and not afterward...."
We have carefully gone over the evidence upon which the trial court entered its judgment in favor of plaintiff. We think it probably sustains the allegations of plaintiff's complaint to the effect that he and his predecessors in interest have been in the peaceable and adverse possession of the portion of Lot 3 described in his complaint for the last ten years prior to filing his complaint, although there is much evidence to the contrary.
However, the defendants are dissatisfied and urge two grounds for a reversal of the judgment. One of the grounds is that the evidence does not support the judgment, in that it fails to show that the possession of said piece of land by plaintiff and his predecessors in interest was continuous and unbroken for the full period of ten years. Under this claim defendants say the law requires that where, as here, it appears that there were several successive adverse occupants of the premises, their possession can be tacked together only when evidenced by deeds duly executed. The rule, however, seems to be that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Recreation Centers of Sun City, Inc. v. Maricopa County, CV-87-0087-PR
...proceeding to collect taxes is in rem. Under our system, it is the property that owes the tax, and not the owner. Santos v. Simon, 60 Ariz. 426, 429, 138 P.2d 896, 897 (1943). As a pragmatic matter, property that may be used only for nonprofit purposes does, in the "real world," have value.......
-
Ammer v. Arizona Water Co.
...that refers the successive adverse use to the original adverse use and is accompanied by a transfer of the use. See Santos v. Simon, 60 Ariz. 426, 138 P.2d 896 (1943). In order to acquire title by adverse possession, a person must demonstrate that he had exclusive possession of the property......
-
Maricopa County v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa
...are owed by the property, not its owner. See Peabody Coal Co. v. Navajo County, 117 Ariz. 335, 572 P.2d 797 (1977); Santos v. Simon, 60 Ariz. 426, 138 P.2d 896 (1943); Pothast v. Maricopa County, 43 Ariz. 302, 30 P.2d 840 (1934). The argument continues that therefore anyone having an intere......
-
Allied American Inv. Co. v. Pettit, 4915
...in rem against the property and not in personam against the individual taxpayer. Its proposition is substantiated by our holding in Santos v. Simon, supra; Home Owners' Corp. v. City of Phoenix, 51 Ariz. 455, 77 P.2d 818; and County of Maricopa v. Arizona T. & E. Co., supra. For the moment ......