CONLIFF v. Hudson
2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 194
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Conliff bought 40 acres of an 80-acre tract; Hudson bought the other 40; their tracts touch with Conliff on the west and Hudson on the east.
- An old fence line allegedly marked the boundary; Hudson treated land east of the fence as his, planting vegetation and installing a water line there.
- A survey in 1996 showed Conliff’s boundary was eight feet from Hudson’s home, placing the disputed area east of the fence within Conliff’s property.
- Conliff and Hudson leased the disputed 29 feet area in 1996 (one-year term) and again in 1997 (five-year term) with a similar description.
- Conliff later demolished the old fence, erected a new barbed-wire fence on the survey line, and destroyed Hudson’s plants on the disputed tract.
- Hudson filed suit in 2004 to quiet title to the disputed land, seeking adverse-possession confirmation and damages for plant destruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hudson’s adverse possession was reactivated | Conliff: possession ceased by lease; no reactivation. | Hudson: possession continued; permissive use does not nullify prior adverse possession. | Reactivated not required; title vested by prior adverse possession. |
| Whether Hudson satisfied all six elements of adverse possession | Conliff: Hudson’s occupancy interrupted by permissive lease. | Hudson: all elements proven between 1977 and 1996. | Hudson satisfied six elements; title vested. |
| Validity of lease due to description | Conliff: lease description insufficient; invalidates lease. | Hudson: even if invalid, adverse possession still governs title. | Lease description issue deemed moot; adverse-possession ruling controls. |
| Boundary-line description accuracy | Conliff: boundary description misdescribed; error. | Hudson: no adequate authority cited; clerical correction possible. | Court declines argument for lack of authority; Rule 60(a) allows clerical correction if needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. Pritchard, 611 So.2d 869 (Miss. 1993) (six-element adverse-possession test)
- Thornhill v. Caroline Hunt Trust Estate, 594 So.2d 1150 (Miss. 1992) (six-element test applicability)
- Stallings v. Bailey, 558 So.2d 858 (Miss. 1990) (elements of adverse possession)
- Gillespie v. Kelly, 809 So.2d 702 (Miss. 2001) (reactivation and permissive use; concurring view on abandonment)
- Fant v. Williams, 79 So. 343 (Miss. 1918) (land acquired by adverse possession cannot be lost by mere abandonment)
- Rotenberry v. Arnold, 55 So.2d 141 (Miss. 1951) (offer to pay for land after adverse possession does not negate title)
- Lowi v. David, 98 So. 684 (Miss. 1924) (title can be lost only by proper transfer or new adverse possession)