Roberts v. Bailey - 470 S.W.3d 32 (Tenn. 2015)

Rule:

Adverse possession requires proof of an "actual ouster" of co-tenants, whereas title by prescription does not. Actual "ouster" is not one of the requirements that need be proven by the prescriptive holder as is the case with the doctrine of adverse possession. 

Facts:

The Robertses filed suit against the Baileys to settle a boundary dispute. During the litigation, the Baileys, who had for years enjoyed the continuous and exclusive possession of their lands, discovered that their ancestors, husband and wife, had acquired title during the "gap years" and, in consequence, had owned the lands as tenants in common rather than tenants by the entirety. The Baileys, proceeding as third-party plaintiffs, filed a motion to quiet title against the Littletons, third-party defendants, also descendants of their ancestors, who each claimed an ownership interest in the disputed lands by inheritance. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the the Littletons. The Court of Appeals affirmed. On remand, the Baileys amended their complaint, seeking to establish title by prescription. The trial court again denied relief, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Littletons’ "undisputed ignorance" of their status as co-tenants in common with their relatives precluded a "presumptive ouster" and, therefore, prevented the Baileys from taking title by prescription.

Issue:

Did the Baileys’ acquire title to property by prescription?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the Baileys’ acquired title to property by prescription because they had enjoyed exclusive and uninterrupted possession of the property for more than twenty years and claimed the land as their own without any accounting to descendants. The descendants did not establish a disability by virtue of their ignorance of their interests in the property or in the form of minority or mental incapacity in order to rebut the presumption of title in the landowners. They also made no claim of rebutting the presumption through having granted permission for or openly indulging the Baileys’ possession of the property. A presumptive ouster was what the doctrine of title by prescription was intended to provide in favor of the possessing co-tenant, subject only to possible rebuttal of the presumption by evidence of disability or permission by the non-possessing co-tenant.