Bailey v. Moten
289 Ga. 897
| Ga. | 2011Background
- Bailey owns a house and lot in Newnan; subject property lies adjacent behind Bailey’s lot and adjacent to Moten’s deeded lot.
- Bailey filed a quiet title action under OCGA § 23-3-60 et seq. claiming title by deed or prescription.
- Bailey’s deed to Matthew Bailey (1974) describes Bailey’s house-lot, not the subject parcel; plat referenced in deed excludes the subject land.
- The subject property’s boundaries are separate from Bailey’s metes-and-bounds description and the referenced plat, creating no conveyance of the subject parcel by Bailey’s deed.
- Bailey sought title by prescription but evidence showed no exclusive, continuous possession; mowing and gatherings were insufficient to establish possession.
- The Special Master concluded Moten held title via a 2001 quitclaim deed; Bailey challenged the chain of title but the Special Master’s determination was adopted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bailey holds title by deed to the subject property. | Bailey contends Beardon deed conveys subject land. | Beardon chain does not describe or convey the subject parcel. | No title by deed to the subject parcel. |
| Whether Bailey acquired title by prescription. | Bailey possessed the property for more than 20 years. | Possession was not public, exclusive, continuous, or clearly adverse. | No prescriptive title established. |
| Whether Moten’s title is vested via the 2001 quitclaim deed. | Moten’s chain of title is incomplete; no valid transfer. | Special Master correctly found Moten holds fee simple title via quitclaim. | Title vested in Moten; trial court affirmed. |
| Whether the Special Master properly construed the quiet title statute to determine title. | Master overstepped or misapplied title-ascertainment authority. | Master’s authority under OCGA § 23-3-66 is appropriate to determine interests adverse to petitioner. | Yes; Master’s determinations sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cernonok v. Kane, 280 Ga. 272 (2006) (standard: findings upheld unless clearly erroneous in quiet title actions)
- Hardy v. Brannen, 194 Ga. 252 (1942) (deed’s description controls; plat cannot extend deed’s scope)
- Williams Bros. Lumber Co. v. Massey, 179 Ga. 508 (1934) (clarifies descriptions must convey separate land; no inconsistency between metes-and-bounds and plat)
- MEA Family Investments, LP v. Adams, 284 Ga. 407 (2008) (prescriptive rights require factual notice and proper possessory elements)
- Friendship Bapt. Church v. West, 265 Ga. 745 (1995) (mere mowing/occasional use not possession)
- Double "D" Bar "C" Ranch v. Bell, 283 Ga. 386 (2008) (possession evidence insufficient when not clearly exclusive or continuous)
- Walker v. Sapelo Island Heritage Auth., 285 Ga. 194 (2009) (possession standards for prescriptive title apply to neighbor disputes)
- Robertson v. Abernathy, 192 Ga. 694 (1941) (occasional visits not enough for possession)
- Brookman v. Rennolds, 148 Ga. 721 (1919) (enclosure as possession issue; requires public, exclusive control)
- Cheek v. Wainwright, 246 Ga. 171 (1980) (vegetation clearing not conclusive of possession)
- Luttrell v. Whitehead, 121 Ga. 699 (1905) (color of title required for certain presumptions)