Scott v. Anderson-Tully Co.

Mississippi Court of Appeals · 2015 · Property

PropertyAdverse Possessionadverse possessionwild landunimproved landclaim of ownershiphostile possessionopen and notorious

Facts

A twenty-acre tract east of a wire fence in Jefferson County was claimed by both Scott’s estate and Anderson-Tully. Anderson-Tully asserted that, beginning in 1969, it marked the fence line with its recognizable blue paint, maintained the tract, harvested timber in 1990, 1999, and 2010, performed timber-stand improvements, and issued hunting licenses covering the tract. Witnesses testified that the blue-painted fence line was recognized in the community as Anderson-Tully’s boundary and that the Scotts did not use the land east of the fence after 1969. Scott contended the section line, not the fence, was the true boundary and argued Anderson-Tully had not proved adverse possession.

Issue

Whether the chancellor erred in finding that Anderson-Tully acquired title to the disputed twenty-acre tract by adverse possession. More specifically, the question was whether Anderson-Tully proved each element of adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence.

Rule

Under Mississippi Code Annotated section 15-1-13(1), ten years’ actual adverse possession vests full title in the possessor if the claimant proves by clear and convincing evidence that possession was: (1) under claim of ownership; (2) actual or hostile; (3) open, notorious, and visible; (4) continuous and uninterrupted for ten years; (5) exclusive; and (6) peaceful. For wild or unimproved land, the possessory acts required may be less extensive, and continued public acts of ownership may suffice. A fence alone is not enough, and payment of taxes alone is not dispositive of claim of ownership.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In rural Adams County, Mississippi, Pine Hollow Timber LLC bought a large tract bordering land owned by Dana Mercer. For fourteen years, Pine Hollow marked a rough interior boundary with its distinctive red paint, repainted it twice, periodically thinned timber, cleared invasive brush, and leased hunting rights over the disputed wooded strip; Mercer never used that strip until she objected in year fifteen.

If Mercer sues to quiet title to the wooded strip, which is the strongest argument that Pine Hollow has acquired title by adverse possession?

Explanation. The majority held that for wild or unimproved land, the acts needed to show adverse possession may be less extensive than for developed land. Repeated visible boundary marking plus timber harvesting, timber-stand work, and hunting licenses were treated as public acts of ownership sufficient to support claim of ownership, hostile or actual possession, and the other elements when proved for the statutory period. A deed does not automatically control if record title is uncertain, hunting leases alone are not made conclusive by the opinion, and mistaken belief does not defeat hostility.