Joan Phillips v. Wilbur Thaxton II, 16-0935

Properties at 633 (Garretts) and 635 (Phillips) Piccadilly Street lie in the Allen Addition subdivision; Wilbur Thaxton claimed multiple lots (partly by adverse possession) and initiated a quiet-title action in 2007.
Thaxton’s 2007 petition named other owners as a group and was initially granted by default; Phillips successfully moved in 2009 to set that order aside and intervened.
Discovery showed unopened streets depicted on subdivision maps; the City claimed ownership of a 36-foot unopened right-of-way called Thomas Street that runs between the parties’ backyards.
The Garretts moved for summary judgment (2015), arguing no party could acquire title to Thomas Street by adverse possession because the City owned it; the City confirmed ownership but offered to negotiate sales.
The circuit court granted summary judgment (Sept. 6, 2016), holding Thomas Street is a City-owned unopened right-of-way (not the same as Burr Lane), and quieted title to each party’s property up to Thomas Street.

Issue	Phillips' Argument	Respondents' Argument	Held
Does the City own Thomas Street (location dispute)?	Thomas Street is the same as the 26-foot Burr Lane on the 1926 map, so it does not encroach into her backyard.	Survey and subsequent maps place Thomas Street where the City claims; Burr Lane is a separate right-of-way.	Phillips waived some challenges on appeal; on the merits, maps consistently locate Thomas Street separately from Burr Lane, so the City owns the street.
Can a private party acquire title to Thomas Street by adverse possession?	Implicitly argued that adverse possession could establish private title to disputed land.	City and respondents: unopened dedicated public right-of-way cannot be taken by adverse possession.	Adverse possession cannot divest the public of an interest in a dedicated right-of-way; parties cannot obtain title to Thomas Street.
Was summary judgment appropriate on the record?	Case had dormancy and factual map disputes creating issues for trial.	No genuine dispute of material fact as to public ownership and street location; entitled to judgment as a matter of law.	De novo review: record (maps and law) supports summary judgment for respondents.

Huddleston v. Deans, 124 W.Va. 313, 21 S.E.2d 352 (1942) (public acquires interest on dedication that cannot be lost by adverse possession)
A & M Properties, Inc. v. Norfolk Southern Corp., 203 W.Va. 189, 506 S.E.2d 632 (1998) (no adverse possession, prescriptive easement, or equitable estoppel against a public highway)
Bauer Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Elkins, 173 W.Va. 438, 317 S.E.2d 798 (1984) (there can be no adverse possession of a public way)
Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994) (summary judgment reviewed de novo; standard for granting summary judgment)