Scott v. Anderson-Tully Co.
154 So. 3d 910
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Stewart Scott Jr. and Willie Scott inherited an undivided one-half interest in a 584.6-acre tract; Herman Scott (administrator) sued on behalf of Stewart Jr.’s estate claiming a 20-acre strip in Section 28 belonged to the estate.
- Anderson-Tully acquired nearby acreage by quitclaim deed in 1969; its deed description lacked a metes-and-bounds for the disputed 20 acres.
- Anderson-Tully marked a boundary along a wire fence with a distinctive blue paint in 1969 (repainted 1986 and 1998), harvested timber (1990, 1999, 2010), performed timber improvements, and issued hunting leases that included the disputed area.
- Scott relied on a 1944 plat and a 2003 survey (Logan) asserting the section line — not the fence — was the true boundary; Scott asserted he paid taxes on the disputed tract beginning in 1993.
- Chancellor found the recorded descriptions inconclusive and concluded Anderson-Tully had acquired the 20-acre tract by adverse possession; Rule 60(b) motion and appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anderson-Tully acquired title by adverse possession | Scott: adverse-possession elements not proved; deeds/plat show estate owns through section line | Anderson-Tully: established all adverse-possession elements by open, continuous acts (paint line, timbering, leases) from 1969 | Court affirmed — adverse possession established by clear and convincing evidence |
| Claim of ownership / notice to owner | Scott: fence was not intended as boundary; 1944 plat shows section line | Anderson-Tully: blue paint, stakes, timbering, leases and community recognition put owner on notice | Held for Anderson-Tully — paint/acts constituted a sufficient “flag” of ownership |
| Actual/hostile, open, notorious, visible possession | Scott: limited maintenance, no regular improvements; tax payments show estate’s claim | Anderson-Tully: wild land requires lower proof; public acts (painting, timbering, licenses) suffice | Held for Anderson-Tully — acts were hostile, open, notorious and visible |
| Continuous, exclusive, peaceful possession for statutory period | Scott: objections (2003, 2007 lease cancellation) interrupted possession | Anderson-Tully: possession ripened before first dispute; no evidence others used the 20 acres after 1969 | Held for Anderson-Tully — continuous, exclusive, peaceful for 10+ years |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackburn v. Wong, 904 So.2d 134 (Miss. 2004) (elements and burden for adverse possession)
- Thornhill v. Caroline Hunt Trust Estate, 594 So.2d 1150 (Miss. 1992) (adverse-possession element definitions)
- Apperson v. White, 950 So.2d 1113 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (quality of acts and flag/notice requirement)
- Wicker v. Harvey, 937 So.2d 983 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (hostile possession may exist despite mistake about deed calls)
- Kayser v. Dixon, 309 So.2d 526 (Miss. 1975) (adverse possession of wild/unimproved land requires fewer acts)
- Double J Farmlands Inc. v. Paradise Baptist Church, 999 So.2d 826 (Miss. 2008) (deference to chancery court fact findings)
- Bank of Miss. v. Hollingsworth, 609 So.2d 422 (Miss. 1992) (standard for affirming factual findings)