Sidney Jones v. Irozenell Pruitt
243 So. 3d 212
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- The Jones siblings (Sidney, Jeffrey, Lindrith) used land their mother formerly owned and began occupying/using adjacent property features (a 455-foot access roadway to Patrick Road and a deer-camp structure near the boundary) over decades; title to the original tract passed through the estate and closed in 2000.
- The Pruitts (Bocee and daughter Irozenell) own the adjacent property; Bocee testified she permitted Sidney to hunt, erect a gate, and watch the land, and asked for a key to the gate (which she says was not provided).
- Dispute events: the Joneses installed locked gates on the roadway, built/expanded a deer-camp shelter that allegedly encroached across a barbed-wire fence, and refused a 2011 eviction demand to remove structures and the lock; the Joneses filed suit on December 29, 2011.
- Chancery Court denied the Joneses’ claims for adverse possession and prescriptive easement as to the roadway and denied adverse possession as to the deer-camp; ordered removal of the lock and removal of the encroaching structure; originally awarded $12,000 attorneys’ fees to Pruitts.
- On reconsideration, the chancellor vacated the attorneys’ fees award for lack of supporting evidence about reasonableness/ability to pay; both sides appealed (Joneses appealed the adverse-possession rulings and exclusion of expert testimony; Irozenell cross-appealed the fee reversal).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of adverse possession/prescriptive easement, affirmed ejectment, and affirmed vacatur of attorneys’ fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Joneses) | Defendant's Argument (Pruitts) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether use of the 455-ft roadway established adverse possession or prescriptive easement | Use was open, continuous, and long-standing; hostility should be presumed where use is ancient and unmolested | Use was permissive—Bocee permitted use and gate erection; friendly relations and permission defeat hostility | Use was permissive; no adverse possession or prescriptive easement established |
| Whether deer-camp structure had been adversely possessed for 10 years | Structure/use area existed since mid-1990s; structure built ~1999–2001—meets ten-year statutory period | No clear proof the structure encroached for ten uninterrupted years; evidence showed no encroachment as late as 2004 | Joneses failed to prove ten years of adverse possession for the encroachment |
| Whether expert Mendrop could testify about a deceased surveyor’s survey | Mendrop relied on the old survey as a basis for his site observations; exclusion was evidentiary weight issue | Hearsay concern: Mendrop cannot attest to accuracy/credibility of a survey prepared by a deceased surveyor | Exclusion of testimony about the survey was within trial court discretion and, if error, was harmless |
| Whether attorneys’ fees awarded to Pruitts should stand | (Pruitts sought fees in counterclaim; argued fees warranted as part of punitive/damages or as requested) | Joneses argued insufficient evidence to support fee award; trial court required proof of reasonableness/ability to pay | Vacatur of the $12,000 fee award affirmed for lack of evidence to justify attorneys’ fees |
Key Cases Cited
- McDowell v. Zion Baptist Church, 203 So. 3d 676 (Miss. Ct. App.) (standard of appellate review for chancery findings)
- Morris v. W.R. Fairchild Constr. Co., 792 So. 2d 282 (Miss. Ct. App.) (prescriptive easement and adverse possession standards are the same)
- Webb v. Drewrey, 4 So. 3d 1078 (Miss. Ct. App.) (elements required for adverse possession/prescriptive easement)
- Biddix v. McConnell, 911 So. 2d 468 (Miss.) (burden: clear and convincing evidence for adverse possession)
- Delancey v. Mallette, 912 So. 2d 483 (Miss. Ct. App.) (ancient, continuous, unmolested roadway use may be presumed adverse)
- Ellison v. Meek, 820 So. 2d 730 (Miss. Ct. App.) (permissive use defeats adverse possession)
- Cleveland v. Killen, 966 So. 2d 848 (Miss. Ct. App.) (permission ends the running of prescriptive period; fact question for chancellor)
- King v. Gale, 166 So. 3d 589 (Miss. Ct. App.) (admission of survey/business-records hearsay analysis; harmless-error discussion)
- Terrain Enterprises, Inc. v. Mockbee, 654 So. 2d 1122 (Miss.) (trial court discretion on relevancy/admissibility; reversal requires abuse of discretion and prejudice)
- McKee v. McKee, 418 So. 2d 764 (Miss.) (evidence/consideration required regarding awarding fees and ability to pay)
- Aqua-Culture Technologies, Ltd. v. Holly, 677 So. 2d 171 (Miss.) (attorneys’ fees may be awarded where punitive damages would be justified)
- Grisham v. Hinton, 490 So. 2d 1201 (Miss.) (general rule: no attorneys’ fees absent statute or contract)