Woodland Grove Baptist Church v. Cemetery
Decision Date | 28 April 2006 |
Docket Number | 1040679. |
Citation | 947 So.2d 1031 |
Parties | WOODLAND GROVE BAPTIST CHURCH v. WOODLAND GROVE COMMUNITY CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, INC. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Chriss H. Doss of Chriss H. Doss & Associates, P.C., Birmingham, for appellant.
Debbie Lindsey Jared and Charles Matthew Brunson of Jared & Brunson, Elba, for appellee.
The Woodland Grove Baptist Church ("the Church") appeals from the trial court's judgment quieting title to the Woodland Grove Community Cemetery in the Woodland Grove Community Cemetery Association, Inc. We reverse the trial court's judgment and render a judgment for the Church.
The Woodland Grove Community Cemetery ("the cemetery") is located in Coffee County. The Woodland Grove Baptist Church was constituted on August 7, 1855, and was incorporated on August 13, 2002. For more than 150 years, the cemetery has been a community cemetery; both members of the Church and nonmembers are buried in the cemetery. The cemetery has been maintained by the Church since the Church was established in 1855, holding "work days" to clean both the Church grounds and the cemetery. Both members of the Church and nonmembers have participated in these "work days."
On March 9, 1947, Pearl B. Moseley was elected to be the Church clerk. While acting as the Church clerk, Moseley established the Woodland Grove Cemetery Fund ("the fund"). Donations for the purpose of maintaining the cemetery were deposited in the fund, and, among other things, the fund was used to pay Church members to maintain the cemetery. The fund was established using the Church's tax-identification number. In addition to managing the fund, Moseley managed the affairs of the cemetery and acted as the contact person for those who were arranging a burial there. When Moseley retired, Julia Brooks was elected to the position of Church clerk.1 Brooks performed the same duties that Moseley had previously performed, including the management of the cemetery and the fund.
In 2000, the Church erected a new structure adjacent to the cemetery; the new structure interferes with access to the cemetery. Because access to the cemetery had become restricted, in the spring of 2001, a group of individuals whose relatives were buried in the cemetery became concerned about the security and continued existence of the cemetery. This group of individuals formed the Woodland Grove Community Cemetery Association, Inc. ("the Association"), which was incorporated on December 14, 2001. Some of the members of the Association belong to the Church, but others do not. Brooks, who had resigned from her position as Church clerk in April 2001, was one of the incorporators of the Association. Shortly after the Association was formed, Brooks went to the bank and changed the name on the account constituting the fund from the "Woodland Grove Cemetery Fund" to the "Woodland Grove Community Cemetery Association, Inc." She testified at trial that she had consulted members of the Association before making the change but that in changing the name on the account she had acted unilaterally; no one from the Church had authorized the name change.
In March 2002, the Association petitioned the Coffee County Probate Court for the appointment of a commission to locate and mark the boundaries of and plat and survey the cemetery pursuant to § 11-17-1, Ala.Code 1975.2 In April 2002, the Church sued the Association in the Coffee Circuit Court seeking to quiet title to the property on which the cemetery is located ("the cemetery property") under § 6-6-540, Ala.Code 1975.3
In April 2003, the Association moved the probate court to remove to the circuit court its petition for a boundary commission. The probate court granted the Association's motion. However, in June 2003, the circuit court ordered that the petition be returned to the probate court because, it reasoned, the Alabama Code contains no provisions providing for the transfer of a petition filed pursuant to § 11-17-1, Ala. Code 1975.4 The probate court stayed action on the Association's petition for a boundary commission pending the circuit court's adjudication of the Church's action to quiet-title.
In January 2005, the circuit court in the Church's quiet-title action found that the Association held superior title to the cemetery property. The Church appeals.
In an action to quiet title, when the trial court hears evidence ore tenus, its judgment will be upheld unless it is palpably wrong or manifestly unjust. Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. King, 287 Ala. 180, 249 So.2d 836 (1971); and Webb v. Griffin, 243 Ala. 468, 10 So.2d 458 (1942). However, the presumption of correctness does not attach to a trial court's conclusions of law. Cullman Wholesale, Inc. v. Simmons, 592 So.2d 1031, 1034-35 (Ala.1992); Gaston v. Ames, 514 So.2d 877, 878 (Ala. 1987); Smith v. Style Adver., Inc., 470 So.2d 1194 (Ala.1985); and League v. McDonald, 355 So.2d 695 (Ala.1978).
"The purpose of [an action to quiet title] is not to invest the court with jurisdiction to sell or dispose of the title to the land, but merely to determine and settle [title] as between the [plaintiff] and the defendants." Dake v. Inglis, 239 Ala. 241, 243, 194 So. 673, 674 (1940) ( ). This Court has applied a burden-shifting analysis to actions to quiet title under § 6-6-540, Ala. Code 1975:
Wiggins v. Stapleton Baptist Church, 282 Ala. 255, 257, 210 So.2d 814, 816-17 (1968) ( ).5 See also Machen v. Wilder, 283 Ala. 205, 208, 215 So.2d 282, 284 (1968) () .
In order for the trial court to hear the Church's quiet-title action, (1) the Church must have alleged in its complaint that it was in peaceable possession of the cemetery property, and (2) the trial court must have found that the Church showed that it was in peaceable, rather than scrambling, possession of the cemetery property. For the trial court to then conclude, as it did, that the Association held superior title to the cemetery property, it must have found (3) that the Association established legal title to the cemetery property, and (4) that after the burden shifted the Church was not able to show that its title was superior to that of the Association. Wiggins, 282 Ala. at 257, 210 So.2d at 816-17.6 The Church contends that the trial court improperly concluded that the Association's claim to the cemetery property was superior to its claim. We agree; the trial court did err.
Thus, the Church satisfied the first requirement for going forward with a quiet-title action.
The trial court has jurisdiction over quiet-title actions in which the plaintiff shows that he or she is in peaceable, rather than scrambling, possession of the property. Orso v. Cater, 272 Ala. 657, 661, 133 So.2d 864, 868 (1961) (); Hinds v. Federal Land Bank, 237 Ala. 218, 219, 186 So. 153, 154 (1939) (); and Buchmann Abstract & Inv. Co. v. Roberts, 213 Ala. 520, 521, 105 So. 675, 676 (1925) () . The plaintiff in a quiet-title action must present evidence to support "a peaceable possession in the [plaintiff]...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Green, No. 1071195 (Ala. 4/9/2010)
...possession when at the time of the suit no other party is denying the fact of complainant's possession.'" Woodland Grove Baptist Church v. Woodland Grove Cmty. Cemetary Page 27 Ass'n, Inc., 947 So. 2d 1031, 1039 (Ala. 2006) (quoting Denson v. Gibson, 392 So. 2d 523, 524-25 (Ala. 1980)). "Wh......
-
Ex Parte Johnnie Mae Alexander Green Et Al.(in Re Frank Stokes
...at the time of the suit no other party is denying the fact of complainant's possession.’ ” Woodland Grove Baptist Church v. Woodland Grove Cmty. Cemetery Ass'n, Inc., 947 So.2d 1031, 1039 (Ala.2006) (quoting Denson v. Gibson, 392 So.2d 523, 524–25 (Ala.1980)). “When one party does something......
-
Monroe Cnty. Comm'n v. A.A. Nettles
...ore tenus, its judgment will be upheld unless it is palpably wrong or manifestly unjust." Woodland Grove Baptist Church v. Woodland Grove Cmty. Cemetery Ass'n, Inc., 947 So.2d 1031, 1036 (Ala. 2006). We cannot say that the trial court's determination here was wrong, much less unjust.3. Mobi......
-
Walden v. ES Capital, LLC
...jurisdiction ‘to determine and settle [title] as between the [plaintiff] and defendants.’ Woodland Grove Baptist Church v. Woodland Grove Cmty. Cemetery Ass'n., 947 So.2d 1031, 1036 (Ala.2006); and because ‘[w]hen jurisdiction has attached the court has a right to decide every question duly......