Scarborough v. Rollins
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01579-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-01579-COA ; 2008-CT-01579-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-09-2010 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Adverse possession - Damages Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-28-2008 Appealed from: OKTIBBEHA COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Kenneth M. Burns Disposition: TITLE TO DISPUTED PROPERTY CONFIRMED Case Number: 06-0300-B |
|
| Note: | Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | CHARLES T. SCARBOROUGH |
DOLTON W. MCALPIN |
|
|
| Appellee: | MILDRED P. ROLLINS | CHARLES BRUCE BROWN | ||
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 - Damages |
| Summary of the Facts: | Charles Scarborough and Mildred Rollins were adjoining landowners, sharing one common boundary. Scarborough filed a complaint seeking to quiet and confirm his title to the property, as well as a determination from the trial court as to ownership of culverts which were on Rollins’s property. Rollins filed a counterclaim seeking to quiet and confirm her title and seeking an award of damages against Scarborough for slander of title, malicious trespass, the value of the culverts and their installation, and damages resulting from her inability to sell her property during the pendency of litigation. The chancellor determined that the gravel road, which is to the north of Scarborough’s property and to the south of Rollins’s property, was the boundary between the parties. Scarborough appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Adverse possession Scarborough argues that the chancery court erred in finding that the boundary line between Scarborough’s and Rollins’s properties is a gravel road and in finding that Rollins proved her claim of adverse possession. Scarborough argues that both he and Rollins used the disputed land, thus exercising joint use of the land; therefore, a claim of adverse possession is not supported. Adverse possession requires the claimant to prove that her possession or occupancy was under claim of ownership; actual or hostile; open, notorious, and visible; continuous and uninterrupted for a period of ten years; exclusive; and peaceful. Evidence was provided to show that Rollins and her predecessors-in-title paid the taxes on all of the property north of the gravel road. However, Scarborough only paid taxes on the property that was south of the gravel road. Evidence was provided to the chancery court that for more than thirty-five years, no one other than Rollins and her predecessors-in-title used this property. Testimony at trial from three witnesses all provided that Rollins and her predecessors-in-title used the property for more than thirty-five years. Testimony at trial indicated that no one, until Scarborough, claimed to have used any part of the property in dispute. Rollins testified that until September 2007, she and her predecessors-in-title enjoyed peaceful possession of the property. Thus, this issue is without merit. Issue 2: Damages Scarborough argues that the chancellor erred in finding that Rollins was entitled to an award of actual and punitive damages and attorney’s fees. Evidence was presented at trial that showed that Scarborough did in fact commit conversion when he trespassed onto Rollins’s property and removed the culverts that she had previously installed. Conversion requires an intent to exercise dominion or control over goods which is inconsistent with the true owner's right. Scarborough removed the culverts from Rollins’s property, converted them to his own use, and did not return the culverts to Rollins. Conversion is an intentional tort; therefore, an award of punitive damages and attorney’s fees is proper. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
