Crosswhite v. Golmon, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01683-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-10-2006 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Sufficiency of pleading - M.R.C.P. 8 - Deraignment of title - M.R.C.P. 12(e) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-28-2005 Appealed from: PANOLA COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr. Disposition: LANDOWNER ORDERED TO REMOVE FENCE THAT ENCROACHED ON NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY. Case Number: B-00-10-393(B) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | ALEX “BUCK” CROSSWHITE AND SANDRA GAIL
CROSSWHITE |
BOBBY T. VANCE |
||
| Appellee: | STACEY WOODRUFF GOLMON AND LACEY WOODRUFF ROBERTSON | BRADLEY TRUETT GOLMON |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Real property - Sufficiency of pleading - M.R.C.P. 8 - Deraignment of title - M.R.C.P. 12(e) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Stacey Woodruff Golmon and Lacey Woodruff Robertson sued Alex Crosswhite and Sandra Gail Crosswhite for encroachment upon the Woodruffs’ property. The court found that a fence owned by the Crosswhites encroached upon the Woodruffs’ property and ordered the Crosswhites to remove the fence. The Crosswhites appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of pleading The Crosswhites argue that they are entitled to relief from the court’s judgment because the Woodruffs’ pleadings did not sufficiently meet the requirements of notice pleading, as required by M.R.C.P. 8. The issue is procedurally barred as a result of not having been raised below. In addition, the Crosswhites’ argument that the meaning of “encroachment” was not clear from the complaint, in that they did not realize that the trial of the matter would involve boundary lines or possible claims of adverse possession, is belied by the fact that the Crosswhites appeared for trial with two witnesses who testified regarding the position of the boundary line between the two pieces of property. Issue 2: Deraignment of title The Crosswhites argue that with no deraignment of title, title to the properties could not be adjudicated. This issue is procedurally barred because it was not raised below. Failure to deraign title is not grounds for dismissal, but a party may file a M.R.C.P. 12(e) motion to force the complainant to do so. In this case, no Rule 12(e) motion was ever filed to request that the Woodruffs deraign their title. Therefore, the lack of deraignment has been waived by the Crosswhites. There was more than sufficient evidence from which the chancellor could find that the Woodruffs had showed that they, and not the Crosswhites, owned the property west of the ditch. The lack of a deraignment of title did not create an insufficiency in the evidence supporting the chancellor’s decision. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
