Pulliam v. Bowen
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01284-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-15-2011 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Adverse possession - Timber trespass - Section 95-5-10 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-02-2009 Appealed from: CHICKASAW COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: H.J. "JIM" DAVIDSON JR. Disposition: QUIETED AND CONFIRMED TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY AND DISMISSED TRESPASS AND EJECTMENT CLAIMS Case Number: 2007-0276 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | M.L. Pulliam, Lonnie Pulliam, Thomas Gene Pulliam, M. Earl Pulliam, Sammy K. Pulliam and Linda Pulliam Wilson |
REX F. SANDERSON |
|
|
| Appellee: | Alpha Bowen, Genora Bowen Williams and Rita May Bowen Neal | JOHN P. FOX | ||
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 - Timber trespass - Section 95-5-10 |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Bowens and Pulliams own adjacent property in Chickasaw County. The Pulliams’ property lies to the west of the Bowens’ property. The property in dispute is located in the West Half of Section 2, Township 14 South, Range 4 East. The Bowens received their property from a deed passed down from Cora Belle Bowen, their mother, to them with the original source being a forfeited land tax patent from the State of Mississippi to their great-uncle. The Pulliams property is described in a deed from Toily Pulliam, their mother. In 2006, the Bowens filed a complaint to quiet and confirm title against one of the Pulliams and all others having any interest in the property. In 2007, the Pulliams filed a complaint against the Bowens seeking ejectment for trespass and to quiet and confirm title to the disputed property. In June 2008, these two cases were consolidated naming the Pulliams as plaintiffs and the Bowens as defendants. The chancellor determined that neither party had fully satisfied the elements of adverse possession to the disputed property. He found that neither party could demonstrate that he exercised control over the land nor that there was any actual or hostile possession of the land to satisfy that element of adverse possession. The chancellor found that there was a mutual mistake in the deed descriptions and not in the actual location of the boundary lines. He found that a deed description that arises from a mutual mistake of the parties may be corrected. As such, he determined that the Pulliams’ and Bowens’ deed descriptions overlap causing a mutual mistake and allowing for reformation of the deed. He awarded the Bowens approximately one hundred acres of property, which was what the predecessors had originally attempted to convey in the deed. The Pulliams appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Adverse possession The Pulliams argue that the chancery court erred in awarding the Bowens certain property by adverse possession while denying them an award of property by adverse possession. An adverse possession claimant must show that his possession was under a claim of right or ownership; actual or hostile; open, notorious, and visible; continuous and uninterrupted for a period of ten years; exclusive; and peaceful. The Pulliams and the Bowens had deeds with overlapping descriptions. As a result, the Pulliams argued that they were entitled to the property that was described under the overlapping deed descriptions because they had adversely possessed the property. The Bowens asserted the same. The chancellor found that neither party was entitled to the property through adverse possession because neither could show that they exercised control to the exclusion of others. The chancellor also found that neither the Bowens nor the Pulliams proved any actual or hostile possession. Neither party constructed fences, raised cattle or crops, or even attempted to improve or develop the property. The chancellor did not err in awarding neither party the property by adverse possession or in his reformation of the deeds. Although the chancellor did not award the disputed property to either party, he did award the Bowens certain other property by adverse possession. The awarded property extends from north of the county road to the southern boundary line of the property described in their deed. The chancellor found that the Bowens met all the required elements of adverse possession as to this piece of property. They built their home on the property and actually occupied it for over ten years. The Bowens had even conveyed two other parcels located on that property. These actions were sufficient to give notice to the world that they were claiming the land as their own. Issue 2: Trespass The Pulliams argue that they proved that the Bowens had committed trespass by cutting timber on the Pulliams’ property. The chancellor dismissed the trespass and ejectment claim because the Pulliams failed to prove that the Bowens had cut timber off their property. Based on the evidence found in the record, it was undisputed that the Bowens had cut timber, but the Pulliams failed to prove the location of where the timber was cut and that the timber had belonged to them as required by section 95-5-10. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
