Charles and James Cobb v. Jack L. and Donna Kay Collins
16-1212
| W. Va. | Jan 5, 2018Background
- Charles and James Cobb (brothers) own adjoining parcels in Jackson County; neighboring owners are Jack & Donna Collins and Ira Richard Kemplin & Jane Stacy.
- Dispute concerned multiple small areas along the surveyed boundaries that petitioners claimed by boundary line or adverse possession.
- Petitioners produced two surveys (Fox Engineering 2012; Kevin Shafer 2014, later revised to add a “green line” marking areas claimed by adverse possession); respondents produced a Cline survey largely consistent with Fox.
- At bench trial, surveyors and multiple witnesses testified; respondents disputed factual assertions about possession, use, fencing, and whether areas were suitable for pasturing.
- Circuit court found the surveyed boundaries (Fox/Shafer and Cline) established the true lines, rejected petitioners’ claims to the disputed tracts (X, Y, Z, C), and held petitioners failed to prove ownership by instrument or by adverse possession.
- Petitioners appealed; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the circuit court’s factual findings were not clearly wrong and petitioners failed to prove adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioners acquired disputed strips by adverse possession | Petitioners claimed long-term, open, notorious, exclusive, continuous use (fencing, pasturing, mowing) sufficient for adverse possession | Respondents disputed the nature, extent, and continuity of use; pointed to surveys, topography, lack of continuous fencing/marking, and conflicting witness testimony | Court held petitioners failed to prove adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence; findings not clearly wrong |
| Whether petitioners had color or claim of title to the disputed areas | Petitioners argued they claimed the land as their own (claim of title) and marked a green line on survey | Respondents argued no legal instruments or title papers supported petitioners’ asserted boundary; green line reflected allegation only | Court considered claim of title/color of title and concluded petitioners lacked instrumentary support and failed to prove requisite elements of adverse possession |
| Whether surveys establish true boundary locations | Petitioners relied on Shafer’s revised map and their testimony identifying claimed areas | Respondents relied on Cline and Fox surveys which largely agreed and placed disputed tracts with respondents | Court accepted Cline/Fox surveys as establishing true boundaries for disputed areas; awarded X, Y, Z, C to Collins and set boundaries accordingly |
| Whether appellate court should overturn bench findings as unsupported by evidence | Petitioners asserted trial evidence was uncontradicted and should be taken as true | Respondents pointed to contradictory testimony and competing surveys showing disputed facts | Court applied deferential standard to bench findings and affirmed—evidence did not plainly and decidedly preponderate against the trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- Boarman v. Boarman, 194 W. Va. 118, 459 S.E.2d 395 (cited for appellate deference to trial court factfinding)
- McDaniel v. Romano, 155 W. Va. 875, 190 S.E.2d 8 (same)
- Somon v. Murphy Fabrication & Erection Co., 160 W. Va. 84, 232 S.E.2d 524 (elements required to establish adverse possession)
- Harman v. Alt, 69 W. Va. 287, 71 S.E. 709 (adverse possession for statutory period confers title)
- State v. Davis, 140 W. Va. 153, 83 S.E.2d 114 (continuous vs. uninterrupted possession explained)
- Brown v. Brown, 196 W. Va. 559, 474 S.E.2d 489 (burden: clear and convincing proof for adverse possession)
- Heavner v. Morgan, 41 W. Va. 428, 23 S.E. 874 (definition of claim of title/claim of right)
- Stover v. Stover, 60 W. Va. 285, 54 S.E. 350 (definition of color of title)
- Wallace v. Pack, 231 W. Va. 706, 749 S.E.2d 599 (compilation of adverse possession principles)