Moody v. Cates


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CA-01340-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 04-05-2011
Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Real property - Adverse possession
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J.
Concurs in Result Only: Carlton, J. Without Separate Written Opinion
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PROPERTY DAMAGE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-29-2009
Appealed from: Itawamba County Chancery Court
Judge: Jaqueline Mask
Disposition: Determined Boundary Between Adjoining Lots
Case Number: 2005-0379-29-M

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Robert Moody and Betty Moody




RAYMOND G. O’NEAL III



 

Appellee: Phillip Cates and Sharon Cates LORI NAIL BASHAM  

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

Summary of the Facts: Robert and Betty Moody and Sharon Cates own adjoining lots in the Bud Isaiah Lake Subdivision in Itawamba County. This dispute arose over an action brought by the Moodys against Sharon to quiet and confirm title regarding an area encompassing the boundary line dividing their properties. The chancery court ruled that the Moodys had gained ownership by adverse possession of a portion of the disputed property, originally owned by Sharon. The chancellor found that only a portion of the area in dispute had been adversely possessed; therefore, she only awarded that portion to the Moodys. The Moodys appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: The Moodys argue that they are entitled to ownership by adverse possession of the entire disputed area of land rather than just the portion awarded by the chancellor. The elements that are necessary to make a successful claim of adverse possession include: under claim of ownership; actual or hostile; open, notorious, and visible; continuous and uninterrupted for a period of ten years; exclusive; and peaceful. The chancellor found each element was satisfied, but for only a portion of the property in dispute. The chancellor determined that through adverse possession, the Moodys gained ownership of the portion of the property on which they constructed the well, well house, walkway with steps, retaining wall, and placed the fence posts. As for the remainder of the property, through which the main driveway passes, the Moodys failed to satisfy the necessary elements of adverse possession. The Moodys argue that they established a claim of ownership to the entire disputed area because they paid a higher price for their lot compared to the price of other lots within the subdivision under the assumption their lot was larger. The Moodys also claim there was a fence dividing the properties and that the construction of the fence is evidence of their claim of ownership. The record shows that the exact location of the fence is ambiguous and insufficient to prove to adverse possession. The owners proceeding Sharon testified to the existence of the fence, but they stated that it only spanned half of the alleged boundary line. There is no evidence that the fence ever enclosed or completely divided one property from another. Because there is no evidence to prove the location of the fence, there is no evidence to support the Moodys’ claim of ownership as to property allegedly divided by the fence. The main driveway, constructed by the Moodys, lies within the remainder portion of the disputed property. The record indicates that the main driveway was also constructed without permission from Sharon or her predecessors in title. There is no dispute that the main driveway was constructed by the Moodys, and it is visible to Sharon and all successive owners. The record indicates that the main driveway was constructed in 1967, and the Moodys used the main driveway continuously since the date of construction. The main driveway is within the remainder of the disputed property, and the Moodys and Sharon, and all previous owners of Sharon’s property, testified to using the driveway. Furthermore, the previous owners of Lot 51 and Sharon testified to utilizing/maintaining the remainder of the disputed property and also paying taxes on the property. Only the portion granted by the chancellor to the Moodys by adverse possession was exclusively used. Both parties agree that ownership of their adjoining lots was peaceful until this present dispute arose. Thus, the Moodys have failed to satisfy each necessary element of adverse possession.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court