Sturdivant v. Todd
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01937-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-01937-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-06-2007 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Adverse possession - Easement by necessity Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): ROBERTS, J. Dissenting Author : IRVING, J., dissents without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-21-2005 Appealed from: TALLAHATCHIE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Edwin Hayes Roberts, Jr. Disposition: CHANCELLOR FOUND APPELLEES ADVERSELY POSSESSED SUBJECT PROPERTY. Case Number: 04-00084 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | B. SYKES STURDIVANT, DAVID JACKSON AND
KELLY GREENWOOD |
JAMES WALKER STURDIVANT |
||
| Appellee: | BRENDA D. TODD, TERRY O. TODD, JAMES NEWTON AND CHESSIE DENLEY | ALISON OLIVER KELLY |
|
|
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 - Adverse possession - Easement by necessity |
| Summary of the Facts: | Brenda Todd, Terry Todd, James Newton, and Chessie Denley filed a complaint to establish three claims of title by adverse possession against B. Sykes Sturdivant, David Jackson, and Kelly Greenwood. The court found that the plaintiffs had proven the elements of adverse possession, and Sturdivant appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Adverse possession Sturdivant argues that the chancellor's finding that the Todds, Denley, and Newton had established their adverse possession claims was unsupported by substantial evidence and was manifestly erroneous. For possession to be adverse it must be under claim of ownership; actual or hostile; open, notorious, and visible; continuous and uninterrupted for a period of ten years; exclusive; and peaceful. There was substantial evidence that all three plaintiffs held the land under claim of ownership. The chancellor found that the Todds had proven that they actually possessed the Sturdivant-Todd disputed property. This finding was supported by substantial evidence. There was substantial evidence that the Todds' possession was hostile because they testified that they believed that the Sturdivant-Todd disputed property was within the calls of their deed. There was substantial evidence that Denley actually and hostilely possessed the Sturdivant-Denley disputed property. The chancellor's finding that Newton actually and hostilely possessed the Sturdivant-Newton disputed property was supported by substantial evidence. The totality of the evidence before the chancellor substantially supported a finding that the possession of the disputed properties by the Todds, Denley, and Newton was open, notorious, and visible. All of the evidence before the chancellor indicated that everyone involved in this case believed the disputed properties to have been within the calls of the claimants' deeds until sometime prior to Sturdivant's purchase of the 267 acre parcel. By that time, the three claimants' exclusive dominion and control over the disputed properties had been continuous and uninterrupted for over the ten year period required for adverse possession. The evidence substantially showed that the Todds, Denley, and Newton held their respective portions of the disputed property believing said portions to be included within the calls of their deeds and that each exercised the dominion of a sole owner. There was no evidence that anyone had ever contested or disputed the three plaintiffs' possession of the disputed property until the Sturdivant purchase. Thus, the court properly found that the plaintiffs had proven the elements of adverse possession. Issue 2: Easement by necessity Sturdivant argues that he is entitled to an prescriptive easement over the property. While Sturdivant requests an easement by prescription, his arguments pertain to an easement by necessity. An easement by necessity is an easement that arises by implication whenever part of a commonly owned tract of land is severed such that one portion of the property has been rendered inaccessible except by passing over the other portion, or by trespassing on the lands of another. The essence of Sturdivant's argument is not that he lacks any access to his land, but that the access he has is less convenient than that over the adversely possessed land. An easement by necessity may be created by proving only reasonable necessity rather than absolute physical necessity. An easement by necessity will not be awarded when the only evidence before the court is that the alternative route would be longer and more inconvenient. While Sturdivant submitted a map showing the longer alternative route, Sturdivant submitted no evidence as to the allegedly higher costs of the alternative route such as estimates, bids, or other documentation. The chancellor's implicit rejection of Sturdivant's claim to an easement by necessity was supported by substantial evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
