Minor v. Minor, 737 S.E.2d 116

Plaintiffs Grover and Caroleen Minor own the disputed 23-acre property at 4727949 Valley Falls Road; Def. Sandra Ann Minor is ex-daughter-in-law who lived on the cabin with Tyson Minor (Grover's son) starting in the 1980s.
Grover and Tyson built a log cabin on the land in the 1970s; Grover allowed Tyson and Def. to live there; Grover pledged the property to secure a loan for improvements.
Def. believed she owned the land based on statements by Grover about inheriting if Tyson died and claimed ownership though no deed change occurred.
Taxes and payments: Tyson paid leasehold tax for living on the property; Plaintiffs paid real estate taxes; Def. admitted writing a leasehold tax check.
Def. and Tyson lived continuously on the property from 1984 until their separation in 2001; Def. remained on the property after separation, with Grover’s guidance to leave only in 2008 during divorce proceedings.
Plaintiffs filed suit in 2010 seeking ejectment and, alternatively, to quiet title by adverse possession; the trial court granted summary ejectment in small claims, and a jury determined Def. did not possess the land adversely under a known boundary for twenty years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in denying a lesser-tract adverse-possession instruction	Minor likely argues possession was adverse to Plaintiffs for a subportion.	Minor contends she possessed under claim of right to a portion with visible boundaries.	Instruction error deemed harmless; no reversible effect on verdict.
Whether Def. possessed the property actual, open, notorious, exclusive, and continuous for twenty years	Minor asserts possession satisfied prescriptive elements.	Minor's possession was permissive and tied to Tyson, not hostile under the required boundaries.	Presumption of permissive possession stood; twenty-year period not met.
Whether the jury should have been allowed to divide the property for possession of a lesser portion	(If accepted) jury could determine possession over subarea.	Evidence supported dividing the tract; required instructions should have been given.	Not necessary; evidence insufficient to show a viable lesser-tract possession under the law.
Whether the trial court’s handling of the hostile-versus-permissive issue affected the verdict	Hostility was shown by jury finding exclusive and hostile possession.	Jury’s hostility finding plus lack of boundaries undermines trial outcome.	Hostility determination supported by jury; no reversible error.

Outlaw v. Johnson, 190 N.C. App. 233 (2008) (instruction standards for jury charges and omission harm standard)
Liborio v. King, 150 N.C. App. 531 (2002) (burden to show jury was misled for omitted instruction)
Rushing v. Aldridge, N.C. App. (2011) (adverse possession elements under known and visible boundaries)
Merrick v. Peterson, 143 N.C. App. 656 (2001) (prescriptive period and elements for adverse possession)
Dulin v. Faires, 266 N.C. 257 (1966) (hostile use defined; presumptive permissive use in family contexts)
Pitman v. Hunt, 197 N.C. 574 (1929) (lease termination required for adverse possession against landlord)
Wallin v. Rice, 232 N.C. 371 (1950) (title by adverse possession limited to actually possessed land)
Sugarman v. Malone, 816 N.Y.S.2d 453 (2006) (New York rule presumes hostility is rebuttable in certain contexts)
Ellison v. Gambill Oil Co., 186 N.C. App. 167 (2007) (standard for reviewing requested jury instructions)
Locklear v. Savage, 159 N.C. 236 (1912) (possession must be shown by known and visible boundaries)