Carpenter v. Huffman

294 Ala. 189, 314 So. 2d 65 (1975)

 

RULE:

Ala. Code tit. 7, § 828 (1940, recomp. 1958), provides that it does not apply to cases involving a question as to boundaries between coterminous owners. The three alternative prerequisites deed or other color of title, annual listing of land for taxation, or title by descent, cast, or devise from a predecessor, therefore, are not necessary to sustain claim to title by a coterminous owner. That is to say, although the claimant is relieved of these three alternative conditions prescribed by § 828, he may still acquire title by the exercise of adverse possession for a period of ten years. However, the requirements that possession be open, notorious, hostile, continuous and exclusive are still applicable. 

FACTS:

The adverse possessor's brother bought a tract of land and erected a fence along what he believed to be the correct property line, though the actual boundary was several feet to the south. The brother sold a portion of the land to the adverse possessor and she built a house on the property. Half of her house was on the disputed strip of land. The adverse possessor conveyed the property back to her brother, and several years later he reconveyed it to her. The property owners filed suit to quiet title to the land when the adverse possessor refused to sign an agreement to have her house moved. The trial court found in favor of the adverse possessor. On appeal, the court affirmed. 

ISSUE:

Was there sufficient evidence to sustain the trial Court's holding of privity of possession between appellee and her brother?

ANSWER:

Yes.

CONCLUSION:

The court found that there was sufficient privity between the adverse possessor and her brother to allow her to tack her periods of possession to his in order to establish adverse possession. Where, as here, the predecessors of Mrs. Huffman had not yet gained title to the disputed strip at the time of their conveyance to her but had possessed it adversely, the failure to include in the deed the description of the disputed strip would not of itself disallow tacking. 

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.