Williams v. Estate of Williams
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00601-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-00601-COA ; 2005-CT-00601-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-05-2006 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Adverse possession - Requests for admissions - M.R.C.P. 36(a) Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-25-2005 Appealed from: Stone County Chancery Court Judge: Jim Persons Disposition: FINDING ADVERSE POSSESSION BY ONE CO-TENANT AND AWARDING TITLE TO PARCEL OF LAND TO SINGLE CO-TENANT’S ESTATE. Case Number: C6601 02-0234-1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Robert H. Williams and any unknown Heirs-at-Law of Travis and Florence Williams |
WILLIAM W. DREHER, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | The Estate of John Horace Williams, Deceased, by Gloria Fairley, Executrix | TADD PARSONS, JACK PARSONS |
|
|
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 - Requests for admissions - M.R.C.P. 36(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Estate of John Horace Williams, represented by the executrix Gloria Fairley, filed suit against Robert Williams and the unknown heirs of Travis and Florence Williams to confirm title to certain real property in Stone County. Robert filed a counterclaim to quiet and confirm an undivided interest in title in himself. The chancellor ruled that John had adversely possessed the property since 1960 and confirmed title in the Estate. Robert appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | When Travis and Florence Williams died intestate, their land, consisting of fifty-one acres, went to their nine children as tenants in common. In 1966, one of their sons, John, moved onto the property and insisted that anyone, including his family, who wanted to visit or use the property get permission from him first. The prevailing belief in the community was that the property belonged to John. John’s brothers and sisters referred to the land as John’s. During 1994 through 1995, John obtained deeds from the children of two of his sisters which purported to give him their interest in the land. From 1997 to 1999, Robert (a son of one of John’s brothers) obtained deeds from two of John’s brothers and all five of his own sisters which purported to give their interest in the property to him. The only time that a family member’s animals went on the land without John’s permission was when Robert placed them there. However, he did not do this until 2001, when John became hospitalized and confined to a wheelchair. The chancellor found that John adversely possessed the property from his co-tenants, and Robert argues that this was error. John’s estate had to prove that his possession or occupancy of the property was under claim of ownership; actual or hostile; open, notorious, and visible; continuous and uninterrupted for ten years; exclusive; and peaceful. An additional element in order to adversely possess the interests of co-tenants is ouster. Robert argues that John’s estate failed on three elements: exclusivity, hostility, and ouster. The chancellor found that Robert admitted that John’s possession of the property was both exclusive and hostile when Robert failed to respond to the requests for admissions served by John’s estate. Pursuant to M.R.C.P. 36(a), these requests were deemed admitted unless the chancellor permitted amendment or withdrawal. By virtue of the admissions, Robert conceded that John asserted that he had a superior title to the land than that of his co-tenants. Exclusive use was also expressly admitted. Robert had the burden of proving that John’s possession began permissively, in order to rebut Robert’s own admission that it was hostile. Testimony at trial indicated that the siblings were fighting with John over the land before he came into possession of it. This was substantial credible evidence for the chancellor to conclude that Robert did not carry his burden of rebutting the prima facie case of hostility. In addition, there is substantial credible evidence to support the chancellor’s findings of ouster. Every one of John’s co-tenants had actual, unequivocal notice that John was asserting exclusive title and he would not recognize their rights as co-tenants. His exclusive possession continued uninterrupted until 2001. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
