Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1996

Giles E. Roberson and wife, Hazel B. Roberson v. Mary Margaret (Darwin) Wasson...

Giles E. Roberson and wife, Hazel B. Roberson v. Mary Margaret (Darwin) Wasson...
Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Decided May 6, 1996 · Presiding Judge Houston M. Goddard

Giles E. Roberson and wife, Hazel B. Roberson v. Mary Margaret (Darwin) Wasson...

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE EASTERN SECTI ON FILED May 6, 1996 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk ) RHEA COUNTY GI LES E. ROBERSON a nd wi f e ) 03A01- 9509- CH- 00299 HAZEL B. ROBERSON ) ) Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l a nt s ) ) ) v. ) HON. J EFFREY F. STEWART, ) CHANCELLOR ) M ARY M ARGARET ( DARW N) I ) W ASSON a nd PUG M ARTI N, ) I n d i v i d u a l l y, a nd d/ b/ a ) CENTURY 21 PUG M ARTI N REALTY ) a n d STEPHEN N. SNYDER a nd ) wi f e , BARBARA L. SNYDER ) ) De f e nda nt s - Appe l l e e s ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED

HOWARD L. UPCHURCH OF PI KEVI LLE FOR APPELLANTS MATHEW D. BROW ELD a nd J OHN R. ANDERSON OF CHATTANOOGA FOR NFI APPELLEES STEPHEN N. SNYDER a nd wi f e BARBARA L. SNYDER

O P I N I O N

Godda r d, P. J .

Thi s s ui t wa s f i l e d by Pl a i nt i f f s Gi l e s E. Robe r s on a n d h i s wi f e Ha z e l B. Robe r s on a ga i ns t De f e nda nt s M r y M r ga r e t a a ( Da r wi n ) W s s on a nd Pug M r t i n, a a i ndi vi dua l l y, a nd d/ b/ a Ce nt u r y 1 Pu g M r t i n Re a l t y. a The Pl a i nt i f f s s ought t o ha ve t he Cour t d e c l a r e t ha t a s t r i p of l a nd a ppr oxi ma t e l y 18 f e e t i n wi dt h, t i t l e d i n t he na me of M s . W s s on, whi c h l a y be t we e n t wo s e pa r a t e r a t r a c t s owne d by t he m ( s e e a ppe ndi x) " t o ha ve be e n a ba ndone d a n d t o b e n on- e xi s t e nt . " The c ompl a i nt wa s l a t e r a me nde d t o a dva n c e t h e t h e or y of a dve r s e pos s e s s i on, a nd s t i l l l a t e r t o a dd a s p a r t i e s De f e nda nt St e phe n N. Snyde r a nd wi f e Ba r ba r a L. Snyde r , wh o h a d pur c ha s e d t he pr ope r t y f r om M s . W s s on. r a

The Tr i a l Cour t gr a nt e d a s umma r y j udgme nt i n f a vor o f t h e De f e nda nt s a s t o t he a dve r s e pos s e s s i on t he or y a nd a t t he c o n c l u s i on of t he Pl a i nt i f f s ' pr oof s us t a i ne d t he De f e nda nt s ' mo t i o n t o gr a nt a j udgme nt i n t he i r f a vor , whi c h a t t ha t poi nt wa s p r e di c a t e d onl y upon t he a ba ndonme nt t he or y.

The Pl a i nt i f f s a ppe a l i ns i s t i ng t ha t t he Tr i a l Cour t wa s i n e r r or i n gr a nt i ng s umma r y j udgme nt be c a us e t he r e i s a d i s p u t e of ma t e r i a l f a c t s , a nd i n l a t e r di s mi s s i ng t he i r s ui t b e c a u s e t he e vi de nc e pr e ponde r a t e s a ga i ns t hi s f i ndi ngs .

As t o t he i s s ue s r a i s e d, we a r e de a l i ng wi t h t wo s e p a r a t e s t a nda r ds of r e vi e w. I n r e vi e wi ng t he a c t i on of t he Tr i a l Cour t i n gr a nt i ng s u mma r y j udgme nt , we a r e r e qui r e d t o t a k e t h e s t r onge s t l e gi t i ma t e v i e w of a l l t he e vi de nc e i n f a vor of t h e

M s. r W s s o n c o n t r a c t e d wi t h M . a s M r t i n t o sel l a her pr ope r t y. n o n - mo v i ng pa r t i e s a nd t o i ndul ge a l l r e a s ona bl e i nf e r e nc e s i n t h e i r f a vor . Byr d v. Ha l l , 847 S. W 2d 208 ( Te nn. 1993) . .

The Supr e me Cour t , i n Ci t y of Col umbi a v. C. F. W Cons t . .

Co. , 5 5 7 S. W 2d 734, 740 ( Te nn. 1977) , a r t i c ul a t e s t he s t a nda r d t o . b e u s e d i n non- j ur y c a s e s f or di s mi s s a l a t t he c onc l us i on of t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s pr oof , whi c h we e qua t e wi t h a mot i on f or j udgme nt i n d e c l a r a t or y j udgme nt c a s e s , a nd di s t i ngui s he s t ha t s t a nda r d f r o m t h e o n e t o be us e d i n j ur y c a s e s :

M i ons f or di s mi s s a l i n non- j ur y c a s e s unde r Rul e ot 1 . 02( 2) , Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e , a nd mo t i ons f or di r e c t e d ve r di c t s i n j ur y c a s e s unde r Rul e 0 , Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e , a r e s ome wha t s i mi l a r , b ut , t he r e i s a f unda me nt a l di f f e r e nc e be t we e n t he t wo mot i ons , i n t ha t , i n t he j ur y c a s e , t h e j udge i s not t he t r i e r of f a c t s whi l e i n t he non- j ur y c a s e he i s t he t r i e r o f t he f a c t s . I n t he j ur y c a s e he mus t c o ns i de r t he e vi de nc e mos t f a vor a bl y f or t he pl a i nt i f f , a l l ow a l l r e a s ona bl e i nf e r e nc e s i n pl a i nt i f f ' s f a vor a n d di s r e ga r d a l l c ount e r a c t i ng e vi de nc e , a nd, s o c ons i de r e d, i f t he r e i s a ny ma t e r i a l e vi de nc e t o s u ppor t a ve r di c t f or pl a i nt i f f , he mus t de ny t he mo t i on. But i n t he non- j ur y c a s e , whe n a mot i on t o d i s mi s s i s ma de a t t h e c l os e of pl a i nt i f f ' s c a s e unde r Ru l e 4 1. 0 2( 2) , t h e t r i a l j udge mus t i mpa r t i a l l y we i gh a nd e va l ua t e t he e vi d e nc e i n t he s a me ma nne r a s t hough h e we r e ma ki ng f i ndi ngs of f a c t a t t he c onc l us i on of a l l of t he e vi de nc e f or bot h pa r t i e s , de t e r mi ne t he f a c t s o f t he c a s e , a ppl y t he l a w t o t hos e f a c t s , a nd, i f t he pl a i nt i f f ' s c a s e ha s not be e n ma de out by a p r e ponde r a nc e of t he e vi de nc e , a j udgme nt ma y be r e nde r e d a ga i ns t t he pl a i nt i f f on t he me r i t s , o r , t h e t r i a l j udge , i n h i s di s c r e t i on, ma y de c l i ne t o r e nde r j u dgme nt unt i l t he c l os e of a l l t he e vi de nc e . The a c t i on s houl d be di s mi s s e d i f on t he f a c t s f ound a nd t h e a ppl i c a bl e l a w t he pl a i nt i f f ha s s hown no r i ght t o r el i ef .

The Tr i a l Cour t , i n gr a nt i ng a s umma r y j udgme nt a s t o t h e t h e or y of a dve r s e pos s e s s i on, s t a t e d t he f ol l owi ng: The Cour t i s of t he opi ni on t ha t a pa r t i a l Summa r y J u dgme nt s houl d be gr a nt e d i n f a vor of t he De f e nda nt , St e phe n N. a nd Ba r ba r a Snyde r on t he i s s ue of a dve r s e p o s s e s s i on. The i s s u e of a dve r s e pos s e s s i on woul d r e qui r e t he Pl a i nt i f f s t o e s t a bl i s h t ha t ove r t he ye a r s t h e y ha ve by ope n, hos t i l e a nd not or i ous us e of t he p r ope r t y i n que s t i on pos s e s s e d i t t o t he e xc l us i on of t h e r i ght f ul owne r . The Pl a i nt i f f s c a nnot a s s e r t a s a ma t t e r o f l a w t o h a ve c ol or of t i t l e t o t he s t r i p of l a nd i n que s t i on. The i r de e d s pe c i f i c a l l y r e f e r r e d t o t h e i r pr ope r t y l i ne s be i ng bounde d by a " pr i va t e l a ne " wh i c h i s a l s o t he s t r i p of l a nd i n que s t i on i n t hi s case. Fur t he r , t he De f e nda nt s a nd t he i r pr e de c e s s or s - i n - t i t l e t hr ough t he va r i ous de e ds of c onve ya nc e , g r a nt e d t he us e of s a i d s t r i p of l a nd t o t he Pl a i nt i f f s a n d t he i r pr e de c e s s or s - i n- t i t l e . Thi s gr a nt of t he us e o f t hi s s t r i p o f l a nd t o t he Pl a i nt i f f s a nd t he i r p r e de c e s s or - i n- t i t l e woul d de f e a t a c l a i m t o a dve r s e p o s s e s s i on i n a nd of i t s e l f . None of t he gr a nt s a l l owi ng t he us e i n a nywa y pl a c e s a r e s t r i c t i on on t he u s e , ot he r t ha n t o s a y i t c a nnot be a n e xc l us i ve us e a n d t he s t r i p of l a nd i s t he r e f or t he be ne f i t of t he Pl a i nt i f f a nd ot he r l a nd owne r s s e r vi c e d by t he s t r i p o f l a nd.

No e vi de nc e wa s i nt r oduc e d by t he Pl a i nt i f f s t o c o n t r a d i c t t he Tr i a l Cour t ' s f i ndi ngs of f a c t , whi c h a r e s u p p o r t e d by e vi de nc e i nt r oduc e d by t he De f e nda nt s .

Af t e r a he a r i ng a s t o t he a ba ndonme nt t he or y, t he Tr i a l Co u r t g r a nt e d t he De f e nda nt s ' mot i on f or j udgme nt a t t he c o n c l u s i on of t he Pl a i nt i f f s ' pr oof be c a us e i t " ha d not r i s e n t o t h e s t a nda r d t ha t i s r e qui r e d by c l e a r or c onvi nc i ng pr oof of a n a b a n d o n me nt . " Thi s s t a nda r d wa s ma nda t e d by Cot t r e l l v. Da ni e l , 0 Te n n . App. 339, 205 S. W 2d 973 ( 1947) , whe r e i n t hi s Cour t , . q u o t i n g f r om a Supr e me Cou r t c a s e , s t a t e d, " t he r e mus t be s ome c l e a r a nd u nmi s t a ka bl e a f f i r ma t i ve a c t i ndi c a t i ng a pur pos e t o r e p u d i a t e t he owne r s hi p. " Our r e vi e w of t he r e c or d pe r s ua de s us t ha t - - a s t o bo t h t h e Tr i a l Cour t ' s a c t i ons ( gr a nt i ng a s umma r y j udgme nt a s t o t h e a d v e r s e pos s e s s i on t he or y; gr a nt i ng t he De f e nda nt s j udgme nt a s t o t h e a b a ndonme nt t he or y) - - t hi s i s a n a ppr opr i a t e c a s e f or a f f i r ma nc e unde r Rul e 10( a ) of t hi s Cour t .

For t he f or e goi ng r e a s ons t he j udgme nt of t he Tr i a l Co u r t i s a f f i r me d a nd t he c a us e r e ma nde d f or s uc h f ur t he r p r o c e e d i ngs , i f a ny, a s ma y be ne c e s s a r y a nd c ol l e c t i on of c os t s b e l o w. Cos t s of a ppe a l a r e a dj udge d a ga i ns t t he Robe r s ons a nd t he i r s u r e t y.

_______________________________ Hous t on M Godda r d, P. J . .

CONCUR:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________________ ______ He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________________ Cl i f f o r d E. Sa nde r s , Sp. J .

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.