Roberts v. Young's Creek Investment, Inc.
118 So. 3d 665
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Young’s Creek Investment sued to quiet title to a 7.79-acre tract south of Ascalmore Creek in Tallahatchie County.
- Chancery Court held Young’s Creek acquired title by adverse possession; Robertses appealed on adverse possession, permissive use, and color of title.
- In 1988 Young’s Creek bought a 482-acre parcel and believed the 7.79-acre tract was part of its property; a 10-year conservation contract covered the disputed land beginning 1988.
- Boundary confusion arose when, in 2000, Roy Shook’s survey suggested the 7.79 acres were Shook’s; Young’s Creek disputed the boundary but took no action at that time.
- In 2007 the Robertses purchased Shook’s and later Dossie Shook Roberts’s 79.78 acres, fenced the 7.79 acres, and Young’s Creek continued activities on the land.
- The court ultimately affirmed the adverse-possession ruling, rejected the permissive-use defense, and found color of title not an element of adverse possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse possession elements proven? | Young’s Creek proved all elements by clear and convincing evidence. | Robertses contended one or more elements were lacking. | Yes; all elements satisfied. |
| Permissive use defeating possession? | No permissive use by owners; actions were hostile. | There was some permission (hunting) by a few members. | No; permissive use did not defeat adverse possession. |
| Color of title essential to adverse possession? | Color of title aided possession. | Color of title is relevant to possession. | Color of title is not an element of adverse possession; judgment affirmed notwithstanding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackburn v. Wong, 904 So.2d 134 (Miss. 2004) (establishes the six elements of adverse possession and standards of review)
- Thornhill v. Caroline Hunt Trust Estate, 594 So.2d 1150 (Miss. 1992) (defines adverse-possession elements)
- Apperson v. White, 950 So.2d 1113 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (quality of possessory acts; open, infamous possession)
- Walker v. Murphree, 722 So.2d 1277 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (test for possession and notice of adverse claim)
- Wicker v. Harvey, 937 So.2d 983 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (open, notorious, visible possession standards)
- Blankinship v. Payton, 605 So.2d 817 (Miss. 1992) (possession must be open, notorious, and visible)
- Dieck v. Landry, 796 So.2d 1004 (Miss. 2001) (peaceful possession; disputes do not negate peace)
- Massey v. Lambert, 84 So.3d 846 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (permissive-use defense to adverse possession)