McBee v. Aspire at West Midtown Apartments
302 Ga. 662
Ga.2017Background
- Thomas and Mary McBee (McBees) and Aspire are adjoining landowners in Atlanta; McBees claim adverse possession (prescriptive title) to a 24x58 ft strip (Disputed Area) on land on which Aspire holds record title.
- Thomas and family historically maintained and used the Disputed Area for parking and storage from the 1960s onward; Thomas stored a 16-foot trailer there from 1977 and posted no-trespassing signs and took other exclusionary measures.
- In 1974 Thomas signed a quitclaim deed conveying any interest in the Aspire lot to his aunt, stating its purpose was to "establish proper boundary lines" between properties. Thomas says he did not understand the deed’s legal effect.
- Aspire acquired the Aspire lot in 2014, began construction, obtained an order requiring removal of the McBees’ trailer, and was later sued by the McBees (May 2015) to quiet title by adverse possession; cross-motions for summary judgment followed.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to Aspire, concluding the 1974 deed conclusively negated a good-faith claim of right; the McBees appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McBee) | Defendant's Argument (Aspire) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McBees’ possession met elements of adverse possession (20-year prescription) | Possession was actual, open, continuous, exclusive, and under a claim of right for >20 years | Possession lacked good-faith claim of right because Thomas’s 1974 quitclaim deed conceded boundary that excluded the Disputed Area | Reversed summary judgment: genuine issue whether deed put McBees on notice of the true boundary; presumption of good-faith claim of right not conclusively rebutted |
| Whether the 1974 quitclaim deed conclusively defeats prescriptive claim | Deed did not show they knew actual on-the-ground boundary; Thomas lacked understanding and no monuments or measurements tied the deed to the Disputed Area | Deed’s language establishing boundary lines amounts to notice and negates good-faith claim of right | Trial court erred to treat the deed as dispositive; factual dispute remains whether McBees knew boundary location |
| Whether Simmons controlling to negate good-faith based on deed | Simmons distinguishable because claimant there admitted knowledge the land belonged to another | Simmons supports summary judgment only where claimant acknowledges knowing land belonged to another | Court held Simmons inapplicable on these facts; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether other summary-judgment grounds were decided | N/A | Aspire also argued McBees failed other elements of adverse possession | Remanded for trial court to consider Aspire’s remaining arguments in the first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622 (discusses summary judgment standard and burdens)
- Simmons v. Community Renewal & Redemption, LLC, 286 Ga. 6 (adverse-possession defeated where claimant knew land belonged to another and admitted hostile intent)
- Murray v. Stone, 283 Ga. 6 (uses of land like mowing, maintaining, parking can support prescriptive title)
- Crawford v. Simpson, 279 Ga. 280 (presumption of good-faith claim of right from adverse possession; burden to rebut)
- Bridges v. Brackett, 205 Ga. 637 (honest mistake as to boundary line does not prevent prescriptive title)