Benefield v. Swords, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01004-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-21-2003 Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Adverse possession - Trial by consent - Description of boundaries Judge(s) Concurring: McMILLIN, C.J., KING, P.J., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-20-2001 Appealed from: Union County Chancery Court Judge: Glenn Alderson Disposition: PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO PROVE ADVERSE POSSESSION; NO DAMAGES. TITLE IN VARIOUS TRACTS QUIETED IN PARTIES WITH RECORD TITLE. ATTORNEY'S FEES DENIED AND PARTIES TO SPLIT COSTS. Case Number: 98-0248 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Milton A. Benefield and Wife, Claylene Benefield |
JOE M. DAVIS |
||
| Appellee: | J. Laque Swords and Wife, Joan Swords, Earnest W. Robbins and Wife, Jamie E. Robbins and Alan Gowdy | OMAR D. CRAIG |
|
|
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 - Trial by consent - Description of boundaries |
| Summary of the Facts: | Milton and Claylene Benefield filed suit against J. Laque Swords and wife Joan, and Earnest W. Robbins and wife Jamie, to quiet title to small strips of land along the southern boundary of their property. The court held that since the Benefields' complaint did not contain a description of the lands claimed to have been adversely possessed, the claim failed. The Benefields appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Benefields alleged in their complaint that they have been in adverse possession "of all the land described in paragraphs 3 and 5" for the requisite number of years. Those two paragraphs contain the legal descriptions of the two tracts and do not refer to the tracts as potentially enlarged up to the physical features that the complaint also describes. The chancellor bound the plaintiffs to paragraph 23 for the land covered by adverse possession. However, there is no basis to block consideration of the issue because of the language in the complaint. Even if the Benefields had not alleged adverse possession at all, the receipt of the kind of evidence offered and accepted without objection on the question of possession would constitute a trial by consent, even if that evidence did not conform to paragraph 23. In addition, the chancellor could have ordered a survey to be conducted where sufficient evidence was introduced of possession to various physical boundaries which had not yet been surveyed unless there were other ways that the land could be definitively described by witnesses and the court such as metes and bounds. Therefore, the case is reversed and remanded so that findings of fact and conclusions of law may be entered, without rejecting the evidence simply because of the lack of a courses and distances description. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
