Charles E. Stasher v. Patricia Ann Perry
217 So. 3d 765
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Charles and Sarah Stasher bought land in 1983 and, per loan requirement, built a fence marking a boundary; no formal boundary survey was obtained.
- The fence was placed east of the Stashers’ true west line on land owned then by Fulton Cannon (later conveyed through several transfers to Randy Springer).
- The disputed strip is ~2.29 acres (≈3,332 ft × 30 ft) lying immediately east of the Stasher property and is record title to Springer.
- Springer (and predecessors) paid taxes on the disputed strip; predecessors visited with a survey crew and marked corners with visible T-posts in 1992.
- The Stashers ran cattle and planted grass on and near the fence until about 1998, but the fence and pasture maintenance declined by the early 2000s.
- Chancery Court granted Springer’s complaint to quiet title by adverse possession; Stashers appealed. Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stasher) | Defendant's Argument (Springer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Stashers had adverse possession while Cannon owned the land (1983–1992) | Fence established boundary and adverse possession from 1983 | Fence was placed with Cannon’s permission, so possession was not hostile | Stashers admitted Cannon directed and permitted fence; possession during Cannon’s ownership was permissive, not adverse — Held for Springer |
| Whether the fence condition and other acts put subsequent owners (Wilsons) on notice (1992–2005) | Fence plus running cattle, planting grass, hunting, cutting timber supported adverse possession | Fence fell into disrepair by ~2003 and other acts were sporadic, not continuous for 10 years | Fence was not maintained or effective to put owners on notice; other uses were intermittent and insufficient — Held for Springer |
| Whether Springer and predecessors demonstrated open, notorious, exclusive, continuous possession for 10 years | Stashers argued only tax payments by predecessors showed possession | Wilsons/ Springer's acts (taxes, corner surveys/T-posts, posting, firewood cutting, wildlife management, food plots) evidenced possession | Court found taxes plus physical acts and boundary marking supported adverse possession by Springer and predecessors — Held for Springer |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. Pritchard, 611 So. 2d 869 (Miss. 1992) (elements and clear-and-convincing proof required for adverse possession)
- Roy v. Kayser, 501 So. 2d 1110 (Miss. 1987) (existence of a fence is strong indicator of adverse possession)
- Ellison v. Meek, 820 So. 2d 730 (Miss. 2002) (mere fence near boundary does not by itself establish accepted boundary)
- Apperson v. White, 950 So. 2d 1113 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (permission defeats adverse possession; appellate standard defers to chancellor’s factual findings)
- Geoghegan v. Krauss, 87 So. 2d 461 (Miss. 1956) (payment of taxes is a weighty factor in support of title)
- Snowden & McSweeny Co. v. Hanley, 16 So. 2d 24 (Miss. 1943) (inclosure and acts of possession must be sufficient to put true owner on notice)