Shelton v. Chacko
| Decision Date | 07 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | No. 123,092,123,092 |
| Citation | 501 P.3d 909 (Table) |
| Parties | Jerry SHELTON, TRUSTEE OF the JERRY SHELTON REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, Appellant, v. David M. CHACKO, Appellee, Riceland Properties Kansas, LLC; Riceland Properties, LLC; and W. Elton Kennedy, Defendants. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
John D. Beverlin II, of Stull, Beverlin, Nicolay & Haas, LLC, of Pratt, for appellant.
Hannah L. Brass, of Medicine Lodge, for appellee.
Before Gardner, P.J., Schroeder and Cline, JJ.
In this case two neighbors dispute ownership of land. Jerry Shelton owns land to the east of, and next to, land owned by Dr. David M. Chacko. Sometime before 1991, a two-mile fence was built near the legal boundary line separating the two properties. It is unclear who built the fence and why the fence did not follow the legal boundary line.
In 2018, Shelton sued several individuals, claiming the fence encroaches onto his property about 40 acres on Sections 30 and 32, and sued Chacko for trespass and quiet title to his land on Chacko's side of the fence. Chacko counterclaimed, claiming he obtained legal title to the disputed tract through adverse possession for 15 years. The district court agreed that Chacko had adversely possessed the disputed tract within the parallel portion of the fence on Sections 30 and 32 for 15 years.
Shelton appeals, arguing the district court erred in finding Chacko met his burden of proof of adverse possession.
As in most land disputes, the parties offered conflicting evidence about the timing of events, the existence and context of conversations between them, and their respective uses of the disputed land. But the parties agree on the timeline of the land ownership.
The plaintiff, Shelton, Trustee of the Jerry Shelton Revocable Living Trust owns real estate in Barber County, Kansas. Shelton bought the property from Riceland Properties Kansas, LLC in 2017. The real estate is in Sections 30 and 32 in Township 32 South, Range 14 West and portions of Section 6 in Township 33 South, Range 14 West. The defendant, Chacko owns the real estate directly to the west of Shelton's property in Sections 30 and 31 in Township 32 South, Range 14 West and portions of Section 6 in Township 33 South, Range 14 West.
A two-mile fence runs north and south, separating the two properties. Shelton learned of the fence's existence about a month after he bought the property in 2017 and of the encroachment after he obtained a survey in 2018. Chacko discovered the encroachment in 2016 from his ranch manager, Kent Remmers. The parties agree that the fence is not on the boundary line stated in the deeds to their properties and extends on to the Shelton Property on Sections 30, 32, and 6 for about 50 acres.
The two properties were once subject to a common ownership and were known as the Gentry Ranch. The common owner, J.H. Gentry, died in 1933. In his last will, Gentry devised a life estate to Beulah Cline and Velma Mills who were allowed to occupy the properties. The Gentry property was split evenly according to a then-existing "east and west fence."
While Beulah had a life estate in the property, her living children each received a vested remainder interest in Gentry's property. Beulah's children each owned a vested remainder interest from Gentry's death in 1933 until Beulah's death in 1994. Wesley Cline was one of those children. When Beulah died in 1994, Cline received an undivided fee interest to the Chacko Property. Cline and eleven other heirs sold the Chacko Property to an entity called Gentry Ranch Partners, LLC in December 2010. Chacko was a member of the Gentry Ranch Partners, LLC and bought the Chacko Property from that entity in June 2017.
Cline and his brother, James, owned the Shelton property between 1974 and 1981 before they sold it to DNB Drilling, Inc. in June 1981. They retained a mineral interest in the property and a right-of-way on Sections 6 and 7 for "movement of cattle and horses" along the existing "driveway and trail" to benefit the "operations on the Gentry Ranch." At the time of Cline's 1981 conveyance, he had a vested remainder interest in the Chacko Property.
DNB Drilling, Inc. sold the Shelton Property to Timothy and Ann Miller in May 1991, and the Millers sold the property to Terrance Miller on the same day. Terrance Miller sold portions of the property to Ian and Sarah Kovach in October 2001. Miller then sold the rest of the Shelton Property to Riceland Properties Kansas, LLC in June 2007. Elton Kennedy was a member of Riceland Properties Kansas, LLC. He obtained a survey of the Shelton Property in 2012 and 2015, which showed a fence encroachment on the Shelton Property. Riceland Properties Kansas, LLC eventually acquired all the Shelton Property when it bought the rest of it from an LLC created by the Kovachs. This occurred in three transactions between September 12, 2012, and December 3, 2015. Shelton bought the Shelton Property in one transaction from Riceland Properties Kansas, LLC in November 2017, and later discovered the fence encroachment.
Upon discovering the encroachment, Shelton sued Chacko in October 2018 for trespass and to quiet title to the disputed tract. Chacko counter-claimed seeking a declaratory judgment that he owned the disputed property by adverse possession. The parties presented evidence and submitted the case to the court for decision.
Aside from the undisputed timeline of property ownership, the district court found that although the testimony varied as to the age of the fence, it had been in its current location since at least 1991. The court adopted various proposed findings of fact from both parties and found that Chacko had met his burden of proving he had adversely possessed the disputed tract in Sections 30 and 32 by clear and convincing evidence. But the district court found Chacko did not carry his burden to prove that he had a belief of ownership of the disputed tract in Section 6. The court also denied Shelton's trespass claims based on its finding that Chacko adversely possessed the disputed tract in Sections 30 and 32 and because the fence in Section 6 had been placed for convenience to both parties and did not amount to trespass.
Shelton timely appeals the district court's ruling as to the disputed tract in Sections 30 and 32 of his property.
Whether an individual acquires title by adverse possession is a question of fact. Ruhland v. Elliott , 302 Kan. 405, 409, 353 P.3d 1124 (2015). And a party seeking title by adverse possession must present clear and convincing evidence of the requisite statutory elements. Clear and convincing evidence means that the truth of the facts is highly probable. 302 Kan. at 410. Kansas law creates a presumption favoring the legal title holder and requires facts establishing adverse possession to be established and not presumed. 302 Kan. at 410-11. 302 Kan. 405, Syl. ¶ 4.
This court reviews a district court's interpretation of the adverse possession statute de novo. Ruhland , 302 Kan. at 410. But we review the district court's factual findings for substantial competent evidence. In doing so, this court does not reweigh conflicting evidence, evaluate witness credibility, or redetermine questions of fact. Wright v. Sourk , 45 Kan. App. 2d 860, 866, 258 P.3d 981 (2011). Substantial competent evidence is such evidence that " ‘provides a substantial basis of fact from which the issues can be reasonably determined.’ " Ruhland , 302 Kan. at 410.
Shelton argues that Chacko failed to prove that both he and his predecessor in interest adversely possessed the disputed tract under a good-faith belief of ownership. Chacko counters that substantial competent evidence supports the district court's decision.
The theory of adverse possession provides that if a trespasser uses land as his or her own for the statutory period and in accordance with the statute's requirements, the trespasser may receive title to the land and the landowner is barred from recovering the land from the trespasser. Crone v. Nuss , 46 Kan. App. 2d 436, 437-38, 263 P.3d 809 (2011). By failing to protect his or her rights of ownership, a landlord "acquiesces in the transfer of ownership to one who has fulfilled the requirements of the statute." 46 Kan. App. 2d at 437.
K.S.A. 60-503 governs adverse possession claims:
"No action shall be maintained against any person for the recovery of real property who has been in open, exclusive and continuous possession of such real property, either under a claim knowingly adverse or under a belief of ownership, for a period of fifteen (15) years."
To succeed on an adverse possession claim, the claimant thus has the burden to show it is highly probable that he or she:
Chacko's claim of adverse possession is that he possessed the property under a belief of ownership for the required time. The parties do not dispute that Chacko's possession was open and exclusive.
A separate statute provides the limitations period for adverse possession claims:
"No action shall be maintained for the recovery of real property or for the determination of any adverse claim or interest therein, not provided for in this article, after fifteen (15) years from the time the cause of action accrued." K.S.A. 60-507.
"The language of...
To continue reading
Request your trial