Charles O'Neal v. Tracy Sykes Blalock, 220 So. 3d 234

In 1990 Charles O’Neal purchased ~255.8 acres in Copiah County, had a survey by Harold King, recorded a deed with the King survey attached.
O’Neal bulldozed a road along the surveyed southern boundary, claimed King placed survey pins (including pins 6 and 7) and painted/blazed a line; no fence was ever erected.
Tracy and Robert Sykes Blalock sued in 2013 to quiet title; parties tried the case on O’Neal’s adverse-possession claim as dispositive.
A key disputed area is a 122.38-foot southerly deviation (the “borrow pit” and “mud pit”) near pin 7 adjacent to Highway 27.
A later survey (Newman, 2013) found pins 6 and 7 did not align with his measurements and showed the encroachment; aerial photos (2006 high-res and 2012 low-res) showed the mud pit appearing after 2006.
The chancery court found O’Neal failed to prove each element of adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence and dismissed his claim; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (O’Neal)	Defendant's Argument (Blalock)	Held
Whether O’Neal proved adverse possession (overall)	He continuously used and improved the land since 1990 (road, deer stands, ATV business) and relied on King’s survey pins	Use and visibility in disputed area insufficient; later survey and photos show encroachment began or became obvious after 2006; no 10 years of adverse use	Affirmed: O’Neal failed to prove adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence
Claim of ownership / "flying the flag"	Road, painted blazes, survey pins, and recreational use put neighbors on notice	Pins not obvious (pin 7 in bushes), no photos of pins/paint, much activity not visible from Highway 27 or in disputed area	Held: Not proven by clear and convincing evidence
Continuity / 10‑year requirement	Continuous use since 1990 due to road and recreation business	The mud pit (exclusive ATV use) arose after 2006, so continuous adverse use for ten years in disputed area is lacking	Held: Continuous, uninterrupted adverse use for 10 years not shown
Hostile / open, notorious, exclusive possession	Use without permission and under claim of ownership through survey reliance	Use was sporadic or not visible in the disputed strip; no taxes paid on that strip; exclusivity only after 2006	Held: Hostility, open/notorious, and exclusivity not established by clear and convincing evidence

Knight v. Covington Cty., 27 So. 3d 1163 (appellate standard for chancery findings)
Keener Props. LLC v. Wilson, 912 So. 2d 954 (de novo review for pure legal questions)
Roberts v. Young’s Creek Inv. Inc., 118 So. 3d 665 (six-element adverse-possession framework)
Blackburn v. Wong, 904 So. 2d 134 (adverse-possession principles)
Scott v. Anderson-Tully Co., 154 So. 3d 910 (burden: clear and convincing evidence)
Massey v. Lambert, 84 So. 3d 846 (definition of clear and convincing standard)
In re C.B., 547 So. 2d 1369 (discussion of high standard for clear and convincing proof)
Hill v. Johnson, 27 So. 3d 426 (test for whether acts "fly the flag" of ownership)
Apperson v. White, 950 So. 2d 1113 (quality over quantity of possession acts)
Buford v. Logue, 832 So. 2d 594 (fencing and enclosure as factor in adverse possession)
Nosser v. Buford, 852 So. 2d 57 (tax payment as an incident of possession, not dispositive)
Wicker v. Harvey, 937 So. 2d 983 (hostility and exclusivity standards)
Double J Farmlands Inc. v. Paradise Baptist Church, 999 So. 2d 826 (requirement that record owner know of hostile occupation)
Ellison v. Meek, 820 So. 2d 730 (sporadic use insufficient for adverse possession)
Moran v. Sims, 873 So. 2d 1067 (definition of exclusivity for adverse possession)
Dean v. Slade, 63 So. 3d 1230 (need for actual or constructive knowledge by landowner)