Dean v. Slade
2010 Miss. App. LEXIS 608
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Richard Dean filed May 25, 2006 in Chancery Court of Jackson County seeking adverse possession of ~80 acres near Vancleave against Slade, Jackson, and Ragan.
- Trial court found Dean failed to prove adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence.
- Property title trace shows original owners Louise B. Cox and L.E. Cox, with subsequent conveyances to Audury Nichols and Voitier, and Garland Cox; heirs-at-law determined for several interests.
- Dean claimed Voitier orally conveyed her interest to him (1993) and that he held record ownership through various arrangements; chancellor found record title divided among Slade (1/3), Jan (1/3), Jackson (1/6), and Ragan (1/6).
- Dean testified to tax payments, signs, fence repairs, and permission for use; he changed tax mailing address to his, paid taxes for periods, and later purchased the property at a tax sale, prompting Slade to file for partition.
- Partition action by Slade and Jackson was stayed pending outcome of adverse-possession claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dean proved title by adverse possession. | Dean claimed possession under a claim of ownership with overt acts. | Slade/Jackson argued failure to meet clear and convincing standard. | Affirmed: Dean failed to prove all elements by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether Dean's possession was actual, hostile, and exclusive. | Dean asserted actual control and denial of owner’s rights. | Record owners were not placed on notice; possession not hostile. | No, possession was not shown to be actual/hostile to support adverse possession. |
| Whether Dean’s acts were open, notorious, and visible to put record owners on notice. | Dean argues signs, payments, and use evidenced open possession. | Actions did not clearly notify owners of an adverse claim. | No; acts did not satisfy the open/notorious requirement. |
| Whether tax payments and other acts established an adverse-possessor attitude indicating ownership. | Dean treated himself as owner and sought to control taxes. | Evidence showed co-tenant behavior and lack of exclusive control. | Insufficient to meet the adverse-possession standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stringer v. Robinson, 760 So.2d 6 (Miss.Ct.App.1999) (sets elements of adverse possession and burden of proof)
- Moran v. Fairley, 919 So.2d 969 (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (defines clear and convincing standard)
- Travelhost, Inc. v. Blandford, 68 F.3d 958 (5th Cir.1995) (illustrates high standard of proof in civil cases)
- Wicker v. Harvey, 937 So.2d 983 (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (open/notorious possession requirements)
- Scrivener v. Johnson, 861 So.2d 1057 (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (notice requirement for adverse claims)
- People’s Realty & Dev. Corp. v. Sullivan, 336 So.2d 1304 (Miss.1976) (adverse possession standards and notice)
- Blankinship v. Payton, 605 So.2d 817 (Miss.1992) (historical standard for adverse-possession analysis)
- Eddy v. Clayton, 44 So.2d 395 (Miss.1950) (early authority on co-tenant and occupancy)
- Warehousing Mgmt., LLC v. Haywood Props., LP, 978 So.2d 684 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (actual possession and control principles)