R.D. Collins v. Moore Family Trust 1999

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2017-CA-00321-COA
R.D. COLLINS AND NANCY COLLINS APPELLANTS
v.
MOORE FAMILY TRUST 1999 APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/01/2017
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. J. DEWAYNE THOMAS
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT,
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: JAMES CHARLES MARTIN
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JOHN DENVER FIKE
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 01/23/2018
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., CARLTON AND WESTBROOKS, JJ.
CARLTON, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. R.D. and Nancy Collins (the Collinses) own land in Edwards, Mississippi, adjacent
to land owned by the Moore Family Trust 1999 (the Moores). The Moores claimed title to
a .62-acre parcel of land through adverse possession, and the Hinds County Chancery Court,
Second Judicial District, entered a judgment granting the Moores title of the disputed parcel.
On appeal, the Collinses argue the chancellor erred by finding the Moores satisfied their
burden of proof for adverse possession. Finding no error, we affirm the chancellor’s
judgment.
FACTS
¶2. As stated, the present dispute focuses on a .62-acre land parcel. The Collinses claim
ownership of the land pursuant to a deed, and the Moores claim ownership pursuant to
adverse possession. In 1911, the Moores purchased a tract of land adjacent to the contested
parcel. After several ownership transfers throughout the years, Hezekiah Moore placed his
family’s land into a trust in 1999. The Collinses purchased their land, including the subject
parcel, in 1984 from the estate of Howard Gorden. Gorden was Nancy’s great-grandfather,
and he obtained his land, including the subject parcel, around the same time that the Moores
purchased their tract.
¶3. In 2015, the Collinses and Hezekiah obtained land surveys. The Collinses obtained
their survey in August 2015, and Hezekiah obtained his survey a few months later in
December 2015. Both surveys showed the contested parcel was within the Collinses’ deed
description. However, the survey obtained by Hezekiah indicated the parcel might belong
to the Moores by adverse possession. On January 29, 2016, Hezekiah filed a complaint
asserting ownership of the disputed parcel and argued that his family had adversely possessed
the land since 1911.
¶4. At a September 27, 2016 hearing, undisputed evidence showed a fence had existed
on two of the three sides of the parcel since around 1911. The fence’s placement resulted
in the parcel being fenced in along with the Moores’ property. However, both R.D. and
Nancy testified that their predecessors had granted the Moores permission to use the land and
that they had then extended this permission to the Moores after purchasing the land in 1984.
¶5. Both R.D. and Hezekiah testified at the hearing that R.D. asked Hezekiah about the
2
fence placement after the Collinses purchased their land in 1984. However, the testimony
differed as to the conversation’s content and outcome. Hezekiah testified that he stated his
grandfather and Nancy’s great-grandfather had agreed on the property line and the fence’s
placement many years ago. According to Hezekiah, the fence’s original placement predated
his birth. However, he testified that his family’s cattle had grazed on the land for as long as
he could remember. He further stated that his family had allowed third parties to use the land
for cattle grazing.
¶6. As stated, in December 2015, Hezekiah obtained the survey of his family’s land
indicating that the disputed parcel might belong to the Moores through adverse possession.
After receiving the survey, Hezekiah replaced the old fence on the parcel with a new one and
placed “No Trespassing” signs on the land.
¶7. R.D. testified that he and Nancy bought their land, including the disputed parcel, in
1984. R.D. stated that they had paid taxes on the parcel each year. After their land purchase,
R.D. asked Hezekiah about the fence’s placement on the parcel. R.D. testified that Hezekiah
said the Gordens agreed to let the Moores build the fence in its present location. R.D. further
testified that Hezekiah told him they should let the fence stay in its present location. R.D.
stated he agreed to the fence’s placement because he benefitted by not having the upkeep on
the parcel. Like R.D., Nancy testified that she was aware of the Moores’ permissive use of
the parcel and that she had agreed to the continuation of the permissive use.
¶8. According to the Collinses, they first learned the Moores were asserting an ownership
claim over the parcel when they received service of the adverse-possession lawsuit. R.D.
3
testified that Hezekiah had never previously claimed ownership of the parcel or indicated the
Moores considered the parcel to be theirs. R.D. further testified that he never told the
Moores or third parties to stay off the land because he had agreed to the land being used for
cattle grazing and bushhogging. R.D. also stated that he never cut growth around the fence,
posted “No Trespassing” signs, or took any other action regarding the parcel because the
Moores’ use of the land was agreed upon.
¶9. The chancellor also heard testimony from Reggie Gordon, Leon Thurmond, and A.C.
Peoples. Gordon worked on the Moores’ property for Hezekiah’s mother. Gordon testified
a fence existed on two of the three sides of the parcel for as long as he could remember. He
further stated that he had driven a four-wheeler around the parcel to check on the fence and
had never been told to stay off the property. Although he had always thought the parcel
belonged to the Moores, Gordon testified he knew nothing of the deed descriptions regarding
the Collinses’ and the Moores’ property lines.
¶10. Thurmond bushhogged and tended cattle on the Moores’ property, including the
disputed parcel, from 1995 to 2006. Thurmond testified that the fence on two of the three
sides of the parcel had existed during this time frame and that no one ever told him to stay
off the parcel. Like Gordon, Thurmond testified he was unaware of the deed descriptions
related to the property lines.
¶11. Finally, Peoples testified that, since 1995, he had tended other people’s cattle and
grazed his own cattle on the Moores’ property. Peoples confirmed that a fence had existed
on two of the three sides of the subject parcel during that time. Peoples further testified that
4
no one told him to stay off the parcel and that he had thought it belonged to the Moores.
However, Peoples stated that he was not familiar with the deed descriptions related to the
parcel’s ownership.
¶12. On January 10, 2017, the chancellor entered a memorandum opinion and order on the
Moores’ adverse-possession claim. The chancellor found the Moores established all the
elements required for adverse possession. On February 1, 2017, the chancellor entered a
final judgment granting ownership of the parcel to the Moores by adverse possession.
Aggrieved, the Collinses appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶13. We decline to disturb a chancellor’s factual findings unless the findings were
manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous, or the chancellor applied an erroneous legal standard.
Turnage v. Brooks, 213 So. 3d 103, 105 (¶2) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “As long as substantial
evidence supports the chancellor’s findings, an appellate court is without authority to disturb
them, even if it would have found otherwise as an original matter.” Id. (citing Joel v. Joel,
43 So. 3d 424, 429 (¶14) (Miss. 2010)). However, we review de novo a chancellor’s
interpretation and application of the law. O’Neal v. Blalock, 220 So. 3d 234, 239 (¶10)
(Miss. Ct. App. 2017).
DISCUSSION
¶14. The Collinses claim the chancellor erred by finding the Moores satisfied their burden
of proof for adverse possession. Mississippi Code Annotated section 15-1-13(1) (Rev. 2012)
sets forth the following elements for adverse possession:
5
Ten (10) years’ actual adverse possession by any person claiming to be the
owner for that time of any land, uninterruptedly continued for ten (10) years
by occupancy, descent, conveyance, or otherwise, in whatever way such
occupancy may have commenced or continued, shall vest in every actual
occupant or possessor of such land a full and complete title . . . .
Otherwise stated, any claimant asserting adverse possession must prove by clear and
convincing evidence that his possession was “(1) under claim of ownership; (2) actual or
hostile; (3) open, notorious, and visible; (4) continuous and uninterrupted for a period of ten
years; (5) exclusive; and (6) peaceful.” O’Neal, 220 So. 3d at 240 (¶13) (citation omitted).
1. Under Claim of Ownership
¶15. “To stake a claim of ownership, the possessor must fly his flag over the property in
such a way as to put the actual owner on notice that the property is being held under an
adverse claim of ownership. The quality, not the quantity, of acts must be considered.” Scott
v. Anderson-Tully Co., 154 So. 3d 910, 916 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (internal citations
and quotation marks omitted). “Possessory acts necessary to establish a claim of adverse
possession may vary with the characteristics of the land, and adverse possession of wild or
unimproved lands may be established by evidence of acts that would be wholly insufficient
in the case of improved or developed lands.” Apperson v. White, 950 So. 2d 1113, 1117 (¶8)
(Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
¶16. Uncontested testimony presented at the hearing reflected that a fence had existed on
two of the three sides of the disputed parcel since around the time the Moores bought their
land in 1911. The fence’s placement divided the parcel from the remaining property owned
first by Gorden and then by the Collinses. As a result, the parcel was fenced in with the
6
Moores’ property. Our caselaw recognizes, however, that “[t]he mere presence of a fence,
without more, is not sufficient to sustain a claim of adverse possession.” Scott, 154 So. 3d
at 916 (¶15) (citation omitted).
¶17. In an attempt to provide further proof of his family’s ownership claim over the
disputed land, Hezekiah testified that his family had enjoyed unrestricted use of the property
for as long as he could remember. According to Hezekiah, his family had always maintained
the disputed area, including the fence. He stated that his family bushhogged and grazed
cattle on the land and had allowed third parties to do the same. To corroborate his family’s
possessory actions, Hezekiah offered the testimony of Gordon, Thurmond, and Peoples. The
three men testified that the fence had existed for well over ten years and that they had always
believed the property belonged to the Moores. Gordon stated that he worked on the Moores’
property for Hezekiah’s mother and that he drove a four-wheeler on the parcel to check the
status of the fence. Thurmond corroborated that he had bushhogged the area for the Moores
and tended cattle on it. Finally, Peoples testified that he had also tended cattle on the parcel
and that the Moores had allowed him to graze his own cattle there.
¶18. Based on the hearing testimony, the chancellor found the Moores established by clear
and convincing evidence that they had used the parcel under a claim of ownership since
1911. Upon review, we find the record contains sufficient evidence to substantially support
the chancellor’s finding that the Moores staked an ownership claim to the property from 1911
to 2016.
2. Actual or Hostile
7
¶19. “Actual possession is effective control over a definite area of land, evidenced by
things visible to the eye or perceptible to the senses.” Niebanck v. Block, 35 So. 3d 1260,
1265 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
“Possession is hostile and adverse when the adverse possessor intends to claim title
notwithstanding that the claim is made under a mistaken belief that the land is within the
calls of the possessor’s deed.” Scott, 154 So. 3d at 916 (¶18) (quoting Wicker v. Harvey, 937
So. 2d 983, 994 (¶34) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006)). “The adverse possessor must present some
proof that his occupation of the record owner’s property was hostile, and that the record
owner—aware of the adverse possessor’s hostile occupation—took no action to prevent
adverse possession.” O’Neal, 220 So. 3d at 241 (¶20) (quoting Double J Farmlands Inc. v.
Paradise Baptist Church, 999 So. 2d 826, 829 (¶15) (Miss. 2008)). Furthermore, “[t]he
adverse possessor must . . . possess the property without permission, because permission
defeats any claim of adverse possession.” Id. (quoting Roberts v. Young’s Creek Inv. Inc.,
118 So. 3d 665, 670 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013)). “[P]ossession with the permission of the
record owner can never ripen into adverse possession[] until there is a positive assertion of
a right hostile to the record owner [that] is made known to him.” Stringer v. Robinson, 760
So. 2d 6, 10 (¶20) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (citations omitted).
¶20. In the present case, the parties disagree about whether the Moores used the subject
land with permission. After the Collinses purchased their property in 1984, R.D. asked
Hezekiah about the fence placement on the parcel. Hezekiah testified he told R.D. that the
Gordens and the Moores had agreed on both the property line and the fence’s placement
8
around 1911. Based on their conversation, Hezekiah testified he believed that he had clearly
indicated to R.D. that his (Hezekiah’s) grandfather had fenced the land in and that the land
belonged to the Moores.
¶21. Contrary to Hezekiah’s assertions, the Collinses testified they remained unaware the
Moores were asserting an ownership claim over the land until Hezekiah filed his adverse-
possession lawsuit on January 29, 2016. R.D. testified that Hezekiah previously told him the
Gordens agreed to let the Moores build the fence in its present location. R.D. further stated
that Hezekiah had said they should leave the fence there. The Collinses testified that, like
their predecessors, they granted the Moores permission to keep the fence in its present
location and to use the land. The Collinses stated they benefitted from the arrangement since
the Moores maintained the parcel and the fence line. In addition, the Collinses testified they
never told anyone to get off the land because the Moores used the land as agreed for cattle
grazing and bushhogging.
¶22. In granting the Moores’ adverse-possession claim, the chancellor found the Moores
had maintained and used the parcel for over one-hundred years without permission. Upon
review, we find such evidence sufficient to prove the element of hostile use by clear and
convincing evidence.
3. Open, Notorious, and Visible
¶23. With regard to this element, we have previously stated:
In addition to the requirements that possession be under a claim of
ownership and hostile, possession must also be open, notorious, and visible.
Therefore, the possessor must unfurl his flag on the land, and keep it flying,
so that the actual owner may see, and if he will, that an enemy has invaded his
9
domains, and planted the standard of conquest. A claim of adverse possession
cannot begin unless the landowner has actual or constructive knowledge that
there is an adverse claim against his property.
O’Neal, 220 So. 3d at 242 (¶22) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
¶24. As previously discussed, the chancellor found the hearing evidence established that
the Moores enjoyed unrestricted use of the parcel from 1911 to 2016. The chancellor found
the evidence further established that the Moores farmed and raised cattle on the parcel and
maintained both the fence and the fenced-in parcel. Thus, although the Moores failed to use
the subject property on a daily basis, the chancellor held their regular use of the property for
cattle grazing, farming, and bushhogging sufficed as open, notorious, and visible. We find
substantial record evidence supports the chancellor’s findings on this issue. We therefore
find the Moores proved this element by clear and convincing evidence.
4. Continuous and Uninterrupted for a Period of Ten Years
¶25. Section 15-1-13 requires a claimant to exercise continuous and uninterrupted
possession over the disputed property for at least ten years. “Occasional use of someone
else’s property without an enclosure does not pass the test of adverse possession. [Moreover,
s]poradic use of another’s property does not constitute open and notorious possession.”
O’Neal, 220 So. 3d at 242 (¶24) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
¶26. Although the parties disagree over whether the Collinses and their predecessors
granted the Moores permission to use the parcel at issue, no dispute exists that the Moores
did in fact use the parcel for a continuous and uninterrupted period of at least ten years. We
therefore find substantial evidence supports the chancellor’s conclusion that the Moores
10
proved this element by clear and convincing evidence.
5. Exclusive
¶27. “Exclusive possession means that the possessor evinces an intention to possess and
hold land to the exclusion of, and in opposition to, the claims of all others, and the claimant’s
conduct must afford an unequivocal indication that he is exercising the dominion of a sole
owner.” Id. at 243 (¶26) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Exclusive
possession does not mean that no one else can use the property.” Scott, 154 So. 3d at 918(¶26) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Exclusivity, within the meaning of
the statute, means that the adverse possessor’s use of the property was consistent with an
exclusive claim to the right to use the property.” O’Neal, 220 So. 3d at 243 (¶26) (citation
omitted).
¶28. The record before us reflects no evidence to dispute the Moores’ claim that only they,
and those to whom they allowed access, used the parcel after the fence was built around
1911. As a result, we find the Moores met their evidentiary burden to prove exclusivity.
6. Peaceful
¶29. “An adverse possessor’s use of a claimed property must be peaceful.” Scott, 154 So.
3d at 918-19 (¶28) (citing Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-13(1)). The record reflects no dispute
over the subject property until Hezekiah filed the underlying adverse-possession lawsuit on
January 29, 2016. We therefore find sufficient evidence to support the chancellor’s
determination that the Moores’ possession of the parcel was peaceful. The chancellor’s
judgment finding that the Moores adversely possessed the land is affirmed.
11
¶30. AFFIRMED.
LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, FAIR, WILSON,
GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS AND TINDELL, JJ., CONCUR.
12