Salathel Presley v. Ronald W. Stokes
205 So. 3d 619
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 1985 the Cannon heirs conveyed ~60 acres to Presley and Moorehead but excepted ~13 acres; in 2006 the heirs conveyed a parcel including the disputed area to Stokes and Heard, who later conveyed part to the Yateses.
- Presley and Moorehead used the disputed land (pasture, hay cutting, cattle) periodically from the mid-1980s through 2008 and allowed others to cut hay with permission.
- Appellants filed a chancery-court petition in 2009 asserting adverse possession, seeking quiet title and other relief; Yates and Renasant Bank were dismissed earlier.
- Bench trial occurred in September 2014; after appellants’ case-in-chief the appellees moved to dismiss under M.R.C.P. 41(b).
- Chancellor dismissed with prejudice, finding appellants had not proven the ten-year continuous possession element by clear and convincing evidence and faulting them for failing to name the appellees’ predecessors in title.
- Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding the chancellor applied an incorrect legal standard by limiting the adverse-possession inquiry to the period the current titleholders owned the land.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs were required to name current owners’ predecessors in title as defendants before pursuing adverse-possession claim | Presley/Moorehead: not required; adverse-possession inquiry may reach prior periods and parties | Stokes/Heard: chancellor required naming predecessors; limited inquiry to current owners’ title period | Court: Chancellor erred in focusing only on period current titleholders held title; predecessors need not be named as prerequisite — further inquiry into earlier possession required |
| Whether appellants proved adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence (continuous, open, exclusive, hostile for ten years) | Plaintiffs: testimony and witnesses showed continuous use (cattle, hay cutting, fence repair, permission control) sufficient for clear and convincing proof | Defendants: evidence insufficient; possession not continuous for a 10-year period as to current titleholders; trial court correctly dismissed | Court: Did not decide merits; reversal and remand because trial court applied wrong legal standard — merits to be reconsidered on remand |
| Appropriateness of Rule 41(b) dismissal after plaintiffs’ case-in-chief | Plaintiffs: dismissal premature because evidence, if credited, would require finding for plaintiffs | Defendants: dismissal proper because plaintiffs failed to meet burden | Court: Standard for Rule 41(b) requires viewing evidence fairly; because court misapplied law, dismissal reversed and remanded |
| Standard of proof for adverse possession | Plaintiffs: elements must be shown by clear and convincing evidence | Defendants: agreed standard applies | Court: Confirms clear-and-convincing standard but reversal based on misapplication of temporal scope of proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Anderson-Tully Co., 154 So. 3d 910 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (adverse-possession elements must be proved by clear and convincing evidence)
- Rester v. Greenleaf Resources Inc., 160 So. 3d 743 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (court must consider adverse possession during periods before current titleholder’s ownership)
- In re Last Will & Testament of Bowling, 155 So. 3d 907 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (standard for reviewing Rule 41(b) dismissals in bench trials)
- Ward v. Harrell, 186 So. 3d 410 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (legal-error review is de novo when chancellor misapplies legal standard)