Stancil v. Farris
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01962-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-03-2011 Opinion Author: Irving, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Easement - Adverse possession Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-02-2009 Appealed from: Itawamba County Chancery Court Judge: Talmadge Littlejohn Disposition: Complaint to Set Aside Easement Denied and Portion of Property Awarded to Defendant Due to Adverse Possession Case Number: 2002-390-L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Martha J. Stancil |
MICHAEL D. COOKE |
|
|
| Appellee: | James Terry Farris | R. SHANE MCLAUGHLIN, D. KIRK THARP | ||
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 - Easement - Adverse possession |
| Summary of the Facts: | Martha Stancil and James Farris own adjacent properties in Itawamba County. Farris had previously been granted an easement to pass over a portion of Stancil’s property; in 2008, Stancil filed a complaint alleging that Farris had abandoned the easement. Farris filed an answer and counter-complaint, wherein he alleged that he had not abandoned the easement and that he owned a small portion of Stancil’s property due to adverse possession. The court ruled that the easement had not been abandoned and found that Farris had successfully established his claim of adverse possession. Stancil appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Easement The question of whether Farris abandoned the easement was entirely one of fact. As the chancellor properly noted, he was the ultimate fact-finder in this case. Farris and Terry testified that he still used his easement four or five times a year. Furthermore, there was no written provision in the agreed order granting the easement to rescind the easement if the flooding problems on the land were corrected. Under these facts, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion. Issue 2: Adverse possession Stancil argues that the chancellor’s judgment should be reversed as to the finding of adverse possession because adverse possession requires a finding by clear and convincing evidence. It is impossible to deny that there was contradictory evidence in this case. However, as the chancellor stated from the bench, he simply found Farris and Terry far more credible as to the ownership of the triangular property. The chancellor believed that Farris had proven adverse possession by clear-and-convincing evidence. Simply because Stancil and her witnesses testified contrarily is not reason to reverse the chancellor’s judgment. Farris and his father presented sufficient evidence to prove adverse possession. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
