89 Va. Cir. 301
Buchanan Cir. Ct.2014Background
- Dispute concerns boundary between Lot 1 (Vansant Lumber) and Lot 2 (K-VA-T) originally part of a 127-acre 1909 grant to C.A. Looney; Commissioner’s Report (1929) divided the tract and described the disputed line by calls including “two sycamores.”
- Vansant Lumber holds title tracing to a 1956 deed describing the line to “two sycamores on the river bank.”
- K-VA-T’s title traces from the Buchanan County School Board (School Board built and used Vansant Elementary on Lot 2); K-VA-T purchased Lot 2 in 2005.
- Three surveyors offered conflicting locations for the sycamores and thus for the paper-title boundary due to ambiguous century-old deed calls, removed monuments, and river migration.
- K-VA-T (via the School Board) used, fenced, improved, and continuously occupied a strip of land (sports field, mobile classrooms) for more than 15 years.
- Vansant Lumber sued to establish the paper-title boundary; K-VA-T counterclaimed to establish the boundary and alternatively sought title by adverse possession. The court held a bench trial and resolved both theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Vansant) | Defendant's Argument (K-VA-T) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Location of boundary by paper title | Paper-title line (to two sycamores) governs; surveyors support Vansant line | Paper title ambiguous; K-VA-T’s survey differs | Court: Neither party proved paper-title line by preponderance due to ambiguous old calls and conflicting surveys; paper-title boundary not established |
| Adverse possession — elements (hostility, etc.) | K-VA-T lacked hostile intent; merely cooperative neighbors | School Board’s visible, exclusive, continuous use for >15 years shows claim of right | Court: K-VA-T satisfied actual, exclusive, visible, continuous possession and hostile intent; adverse possession established to edge of ditch |
| Mistake as defense to hostility | School Board acted under mistaken belief (Holbrook survey), so lacked intent to claim adverse title | Even if mistaken, School Board claimed up to a definite line on the ground (the ditch) — intent can be shown by conduct | Court: Mistake irrelevant — possession up to a visible line (ditch) satisfies hostility requirement |
| Permission as defense | Vansant had permitted some use and later resumed use, so original occupation was by permission | No evidence original entry began by permission; School Board was already in possession when Vansant bought Lot 1 | Court: Vansant failed to prove permission; permission defense not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferris v. Snellings, 213 Va. 452, 192 S.E.2d 804 (boundary proceedings require burden by preponderance)
- Grappo v. Blanks, 241 Va. 58, 400 S.E.2d 168 (elements and standard of proof for adverse possession)
- Quatannens v. Tyrrell, 268 Va. 360, 601 S.E.2d 616 (permission and proof burdens; testimony of mistaken intent irrelevant)
- Hollander v. World Mission Church, 255 Va. 440, 498 S.E.2d 419 (claim to a line on the ground can sustain adverse possession despite deed mistakes)
- Kim v. Douval Corp., 259 Va. 752, 529 S.E.2d 92 (unequivocal conduct can establish a claim of right)
Outcome / Relief: Court awarded title by adverse possession to K-VA-T up to the ditch/retaining wall (as shown on admitted survey), and ordered a mutually agreed (or court-appointed) surveyor to make the official survey with costs shared by the parties.