Scott v. Anderson-Tully Co.
| Docket Number: | 2013-CA-00533-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-06-2015 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Adverse possession Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Fair, JJ., Concur. James, J., Concurs in Part Without Separate Written Opinion. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-22-2013 Appealed from: JEFFERSON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: GEORGE WARD Disposition: Found appellee had adversely possessed disputed property Case Number: 2010-027 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Herman Scott, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Stewart Scott, Jr., Deceased |
PATRICIA ANN CATCHINGS |
|
|
| Appellee: | Anderson-Tully Company | LANDMAN TELLER JR., LAUREN ROBERTS CAPPAERT | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Real property - Adverse possession |
| Summary of the Facts: | Herman Scott filed suit seeking damages after Anderson-Tully Company removed timber from a twenty-acre parcel of land Scott claimed to own. Scott also sought to quiet and confirm title and to enjoin Anderson-Tully from entering the land. The chancellor dismissed Scott’s claim, finding that Anderson-Tully had acquired title to the twenty acres through adverse possession. Scott appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Scott argues that Anderson-Tully presented insufficient evidence to prove a claim of adverse possession. For possession to be adverse, it must be under claim of ownership; actual or hostile; open, notorious, and visible; continuous and uninterrupted for a period of ten years; exclusive; and peaceful. After purchasing the Jefferson County property in 1969, Anderson-Tully marked its borders with its recognizable company blue paint. The blue paint ran along the wire fence erected by the Scott family and included the disputed twenty acres in Section 28. Multiple witnesses saw the paint lines between 1969 and 2010, and knew the lines marked the boundary of Anderson-Tully’s property. Anderson-Tully’s company records show that it painted the blue line in 1969, and repainted it in 1986 and 1998. Anderson-Tully cut and harvested timber in 1990, 1999, and 2010. It also granted five hunting licenses to the property which contained maps describing the disputed twenty acres as part of the lease. Scott argues that regardless of Anderson-Tully’s actions, the estate has a possessory claim because he began paying property taxes on the disputed tract in 1993. However, the chancellor found Scott presented insufficient evidence to support his claim that he paid taxes on the disputed property. And, the payment of taxes alone is not dispositive of the claim of ownership. Anderson-Tully did not seek anyone’s permission to use the property. The testimony established that after 1969, only Anderson-Tully used the disputed property. The possession was visible, as evidenced by eyewitnesses who saw the blue paint along the fence line between 1969 and 2010. The possession was also notorious, as the fence and blue paint were recognized in the community as the dividing line between the properties. Scott argues the possession was not continuous and uninterrupted because he disputed Anderson-Tully’s possession in 2003. However, the chancellor found these actions of no consequence, as Anderson-Tully’s adverse-possession claim had ripened before Scott made the first objection in 2003. No testimony was presented that the Scotts or anyone other than Anderson-Tully used the property on the east side of the fence after 1969. Thus, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the chancellor’s finding that Anderson-Tully proved adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
