Steven J. Thomas v. Jeffrey M. Thomas v. Delmus L. Thomas
W2016-01412-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Apr 17, 2017Background
- In 1976 Parents (Delmus and Emily Thomas) and Sons (Steven and Jeffrey) acquired the McLemoresville farm; the recorded deed (1979) shows Parents with a 1/2 interest and each son with 1/4.
- Family farmed together for decades; Parents paid taxes, expenses, and received revenues; Sons worked the land and paid rent/share of crops when Sons farmed.
- Steven filed for partition in 2010; Jeffrey expanded the partition claims and brought Parents into the suit; Parents later sought declaration of sole ownership based on resulting/constructive trust, reformation, tax-payment statute, and—later in briefing—prescription and unjust enrichment.
- The trial court awarded full ownership to Parents based on title by prescription and unjust enrichment (finding Parents paid all costs for decades).
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-110 did not bar Steven’s claim, (2) prescription was not shown because possession was not exclusive or adverse, and (3) unjust enrichment failed because Parents’ payments were voluntary and they received benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Steven) | Defendant's Argument (Parents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-110 bars sons’ claims for their recorded interests | §28-2-110 should not bar Steven; no ouster/disseisin occurred | Parents argued long nonpayment of taxes by Sons bars claims | Held: Statute does not bar Steven; payment of taxes by cotenant inures to benefit of other cotenants absent ouster |
| Whether Parents could obtain title by prescription | Steven: No exclusive, adverse, uninterrupted possession for 20+ years; farmed jointly | Parents: Their long payment and exclusive control establish prescriptive title | Held: Reversed—prescription not established; possession was not exclusive/adverse and parties farmed harmoniously |
| Whether Parents can recover under unjust enrichment | Steven: Parents’ expenditures were voluntary; they received benefits; no unjust enrichment | Parents: Payments and retention of revenues justify relief | Held: Reversed—unjust enrichment fails because Parents acted voluntarily and received consideration/benefit |
| Whether trial court could decide prescription/unjust enrichment raised only in briefs | Steven: These theories were not pleaded and were prejudicial when raised late | Parents: Theories were properly asserted in counterclaims/briefs | Held: Court declined to rest decision on pleading-defense procedural issue; reached merits and reversed on substantive grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. Bailey, 470 S.W.3d 32 (Tenn. 2015) (elements required to establish title by prescription)
- Phillips v. Pittsburgh Consol. Coal Co., 541 S.W.2d 411 (Tenn. 1976) (tax-payment statute bars suit to recover land but does not prevent a cotenant from defending title absent ouster)
- Paschall’s, Inc. v. Dozier, 407 S.W.2d 150 (Tenn. 1966) (elements and limits of unjust enrichment/quasi-contract)
- Freeman Indus., LLC v. Eastman Chem. Co., 172 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2005) (discussion of unjust enrichment elements)
- Cumulus Broad., Inc. v. Shim, 226 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn. 2007) (clear-and-convincing standard applied to adverse-possession-related claims)
- Moore v. Cole, 289 S.W.2d 695 (Tenn. 1956) (holding that statute barring suits for tax nonpayment does not bar cotenant suits absent disseisin)