Arthur B. Roberts v. Robert Bailey
470 S.W.3d 32
| Tenn. | 2015Background
- boundary dispute over the James Farm (Tract I and II) in Loudon County; the deed to N.B. and Pearl Bailey occurred during the “gap years” (1914–1919) creating a tenancy in common, not a tenancy by the entirety; Pearl Bailey later conveyed parts of Tract I while reserving a life estate; descendants (Littletons) claim interests in Tract I by inheritance; Baileys claimed exclusive possession since 1957 and sought title by prescription; trial court denied and Court of Appeals affirmed, then remanded for prescription theory, leading to this Supreme Court decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether title by prescription runs to a co-tenant holder against non-possessing co-tenants | Baileys possess for >20 years | Littletons lack disability and rights; no presumptive ouster | Baileys entitled to title by prescription |
| Whether the Littletons’ ignorance of co-tenancy constitutes a disability to sue | Disability exists due to lack of knowledge | Ignorance not a legal disability | Ignorance is not a disability; not rebutting presumption |
| Whether there was permission or implied permission negating prescription | No permission given; exclusive possession uninterrupted | Possession may have implied permission via co-tenants | No proof of permission; presumption of title stands |
| Whether the prescriptive period can be tacked across generations and heirs | Possession by Bailey line from 1957 suffices | Tacking allowed among heirs; but analysis consistent with presumption | Tacking permitted; Baileys meet 20-year requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Marr’s Heirs v. Gilliam, 41 Tenn. 488 (Tenn. 1860) (exclusive possession by co-tenant over long period creates title evidence)
- Gill v. McKinney, 205 S.W. 416 (Tenn. 1918) (gap-years tenancy by entirety abolished then restored; affects survivorship)
- Morgan v. Dillard, 456 S.W.2d 359 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1970) (title by prescription awarded to co-tenant for exclusive possession)
- Brown v. Daly, 968 S.W.2d 814 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (prescription requires possession without permission; ouster not necessary)