Wallace v. Putman
Decision Date | 26 September 1986 |
Parties | Willie WALLACE and Virginia Wallace v. D.L. PUTMAN. 84-816. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J. Allen Brinkley, Daniel F. Aldridge of Brinkley & Ford, Huntsville, for appellants.
Charles E. Richardson III, Michael I. Spearing of Watts, Salmon, Roberts, Manning & Noojin, Huntsville, for appellee.
This appeal arose out of a boundary line dispute over land located in Madison County.
The Wallaces filed a complaint with the circuit court to quiet title to the property in question, declare the boundary lines of the parties, and determine whether they had by prescription acquired the right to use a paved road running along the boundary. After hearing ore tenus evidence and viewing the property personally, the court ruled in favor of the defendant, D.L. Putman.
Putman acquired a 36-acre tract of rural property in 1983. This property is bordered on its eastern side by property owned by Willie and Virginia Wallace since 1965. According to their respective deeds, the common boundary line should be the north-south center line of Section 4, Township 3 South, Range 2 West.
The Wallaces contend, however, that the boundary is farther to the west, specifically to the center line of Pettus Road. Their contention is in direct conflict with the language of their deeds, which draws the road in controversy entirely within the boundaries of Putman's land. The Wallaces claim that adverse possession and an agreement between the coterminous landowners justify expansion beyond the reach of their deed. The Wallaces alternatively claim that the roadway in question was built by Madison County, that it is a public road, and that they have acquired the right to use the roadway by prescription.
The following diagram depicts the lands in question and should aid in understanding the parties' claims:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
In its findings of fact the trial court held that Putman had not acquired the property by adverse possession and there was no understanding or agreement between the Wallaces and D.L. Putman's predecessors in title to accept the center of Pettus Road as the property line.
With respect to the Wallaces' other claims, the court decreed:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parker v. Rhoades
...possession cases, and the presumption is further enhanced if the trial court personally views the property in dispute. Wallace v. Putman, 495 So.2d 1072, 1075 (Ala. 1986).’ Bell v. Jackson, 530 So.2d 42, 44 (Ala. 1988)." ‘The [ore tenus] presumption developed in our law because the trial co......
-
Dickinson v. Suggs
...evidence in such cases is difficult for an appellate court to review. Seidler v. Phillips, 496 So.2d 714 (Ala.1986) ; Wallace v. [Putman ], 495 So.2d 1072 (Ala.1986) ; Drennen Land & Timber Co. v. Angell, 475 So.2d 1166 (Ala.1985) ; May v. Campbell, 470 So.2d 1188 (Ala.1985).”Bearden v. Ell......
-
Stokes v. Stokes
...use is found to have been permissive, continued use will not ripen into adverse possession by mere lapse of time. Wallace v. Putman, 495 So.2d 1072, 1076 (Ala.1986). ‘In order to change possession from permissive to adverse, the possessor must make a clear and positive disclaimer or repudia......
-
Williams v. White
...the evidence in such cases is difficult for an appellate court to review. Seidler v. Phillips, 496 So.2d 714 (Ala.1986) ; Wallace v. Putman, 495 So.2d 1072 (Ala.1986) ; Drennen Land & Timber Co. v. Angell, 475 So.2d 1166 (Ala.1985) ; May v. Campbell, 470 So.2d 1188 (Ala.1985)."Bearden v. El......
-
Unification of the Doctrines of Adverse Possession and Practical Location in the Establishment of Boundaries
...hostility for adverse possession purposes or the requisite uncertainty for practical location purposes); see also Wallace v. Putman, 495 So. 2d 1072 (Ala. 1986); Mehdizadeh v. Mincer, 54 Cal. Rptr. 2d 284 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996); Shultz v. Johnson, 654 So. 2d 567 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995). ...