Scott v. Anderson-Tully Co.

154 So.3d 910 (2015)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Stewart and Willie Scott inherited an undivided one-half interest in a 584.6-acre tract of land. The brothers' respective estates now each own the undivided one-half-interest shares in the property (collectively referred to as 'the estate'). P is the administrator of Stewart Scott Jr.'s estate. P filed suit alleging that its adjacent landowner to the east, D, was trespassing on a portion of the estate's property. P sought damages for the removal of timber, and he sought an order enjoining D from entering onto or cutting and removing timber from the property. P sought to quiet and confirm title. D claimed that according to its deed, it owned the disputed twenty acres in Section 28 east of the wire fence. Alternatively, D argued that it acquired title to the property by adverse possession through its possession and use of the land from 1969 to 2010. Both sides presented extensive evidence as to the boundaries and ownership of the disputed land. D's 1969 survey found that the boundary line between P's and D's properties ran along the wire fence, making the disputed twenty acres part of D's property. D placed flags and stakes and used blue paint to mark the boundary line along the fence. D's field notes reference conversations with neighboring property owners, including a P family member, none of whom objected to his placement of flags and stakes during his survey. D alternatively argued that if the deed did not convey the property, it owned the property through adverse possession. In 1969, D marked its perceived boundary line along the wire fence with a particular shade of blue paint-a practice started by the company in the 1920s. The line was repainted in 1986 and 1998. Witnesses testified that the blue line along the fence was visible continuously from 1969 through 2010 when P filed suit. Witnesses also testified that the particular shade of blue paint was commonly known in the community as that of D. From 1969 to 2010, Anderson-Tully maintained the disputed acreage and cut and harvested timber in 1990, 1999, and 2010. The company also issued five hunting licenses to the property. From 1969 until 1981, no one objected to his survey or interfered with D's ownership or use of the disputed tract. According to a witness, Wilber Nations, the wire fence was recognized by the community as the property line, and D was the owner of the property to the east of the fence. Nations testified that P had never used the disputed tract. His family, however, had used the tract, including the disputed twenty acres, to run cattle, and they had cut timber on it. As late as 1993, Ps cut timber up to and west of the fence line, but they never cut east of the fence line. He saw blue paint marking the property's boundary along the fence in 1980 and 1985, and again three weeks before trial. He recognized the paint color as that used by D to mark its borders. The chancellor concluded that neither property markings 'accurately describes the disputed tract to any certainty so as to read the various descriptions and know which party is the record title owner of the property.' The chancellor found overwhelming evidence of D's adverse possession. P appealed.