Massey v. Lambert
2012 Miss. App. LEXIS 166
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Virginia Massey sued Ronald and Patricia Lambert alleging adverse possession of disputed property.
- Property derives from Elliot McLeod; Dennis Massey (Virginia’s husband) acquired adjacent land in 1961 and built a shop.
- John Edsel Lambert acquired land adjoining Dennis’s; he later discovered Dennis’s shop encroached on his land.
- Dennis and John discussed a foot-for-foot land exchange to resolve the encroachment, but never finalized it; Dennis died in 1979.
- Virginia’s heirs conveyed their shares via quitclaim deeds to Virginia, who pursued ongoing use of the land.
- Trial court found Virginia’s use was permissive, not adverse, and thus failed to prove the six elements of adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the possession adverse or permissive? | Massey asserted adverse possession by Virginia and predecessor. | Lambert contends use was permissive by permission of John. | Use was permissive; adverse possession not proven. |
| Does evidence of owner’s permission defeat adverse possession? | Virginia argues permission is inconsistent with hostility required for adversity. | Lambert emphasizes John's permission and the proposed land exchange kept use permissive. | Permission defeats adversity; no clear and convincing case. |
| Did the anticipated land exchange affect the adverse-possession claim? | Virginia relied on longstanding use independent of formal exchange. | Lambert notes discussion of exchange and permission undermines claim of hostility. | Absence of hostility due to permission and exchange discussions forecloses adverse possession. |
Key Cases Cited
- Niebanck v. Block, 35 So.3d 1260 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (permissive use cannot ripen into adverse possession)
- Thornhill v. Caroline Hunt Trust Estate, 594 So.2d 1150 (Miss.1992) (adverse possession requires hostility to be adverse)
- Cook v. Robinson, 924 So.2d 592 (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (six elements of adverse possession; clear and convincing standard)
- Moran v. Fairley, 919 So.2d 969 (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Travelhost, Inc. v. Blandford, 68 F.3d 958 (5th Cir.1995) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)