Case Title: Lee v. Jefferson

Citation: 435 So. 2d 1240

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1983-07-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
435 So. 2d 1240 (1983)
Willie James LEE and Annie Mae Lee
v.
James JEFFERSON.
81-659.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
July 8, 1983.
*1241 E. Terry Brown of Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, Montgomery, for appellants.
Charles Price, Montgomery, for appellee.
EMBRY, Justice.
Willie James Lee and Annie Mae Lee brought a statutory action in the nature of ejectment against James Jefferson to recover possession of the following described property, to-wit:
In the same action, the Lees stated a second claim against Jefferson for trespass and sought a permanent injunction against him regarding the latter. The Lees appeal from an adverse judgment as to both. We need consider only the ejectment aspect of this appeal in order to dispose of it.
In prior litigation, James Jefferson was awarded the following described property by judgment of 14 May 1980:
The action we deal with in this opinion was filed by the Lees on 19 December 1980, tried, and the judgment that followed was entered on 4 March 1982:
As is patent from the description in the 4 March 1982 judgment, Jefferson was awarded a parcel of land other than that awarded him by the judgment of 14 May 1980, apparently applying equitable principles in this statutory ejectment action. This was error.[1]
In this case the trial court empaneled an advisory jury while reserving the legal issues for its own determination. That jury, by an 8-4 margin, advised that Jefferson should be awarded the property encroached upon by the Lees and that he should be permitted to keep all improvements then situated on it.
In Alabama, ejectment is a favored action for the trial of title to land. Kelley v. Mashburn, 286 Ala. 7, 236 So. 2d 326 (1970). This case, a statutory action in the nature of ejectment, § 6-6-280(b), Code 1975, is mixed, in that it is in rem as to title and in personam insofar as damages sought for detention. Such action clearly calls for a legal determination, not an equitable one. Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. Butler, 287 Ala. 584, 253 So. 2d 511 (1971); Lyons v. Taylor, 231 Ala. 600, 166 So. 15 (1936). More precisely, if the plaintiff shows a superior legal title, absent any legal defenses, he must recover without regard to any equities between the parties. Blair v. Blair, 199 Ala. 480, 74 So. 947 (1917).
The overwhelming weight of the evidence in this case shows that the Lees hold superior title to the property in issue. On numerous occasions during the course of discovery, and later at trial, Jefferson admitted he owned only the specific 100 × 100 foot parcel of property awarded him by the judgment of 14 May 1980. Also undisputed is the fact the Lees owned the remaining portion of the 40-acre tract less and except the 100 × 100 foot lot owned by Jefferson.
The only question for the trier of fact in this case, regarding the ejectment issue, is whether Jefferson encroached upon any portion of property to which the Lees hold legal title.
Both parties introduced surveys which purport to indicate what property is owned by Jefferson. James B. Hunt, a licensed land surveyor with almost 25 years' experience, testified for plaintiffs. He prepared a plat of a survey that was introduced into evidence. It showed that some of the property occupied by Jefferson extended beyond the 100 × 100 foot lot deeded as a result of the 14 May 1980 judgment and encroached upon the Lees' property. Hunt further testified that in preparing the survey he followed the same legal description as set out in the 14 May 1980 judgment. Derrell Strickland, a civil engineer, testified on behalf of Jefferson. Strickland testified that he prepared a plat of a survey from information given to him by a field survey crew under his supervision, which plat located Jefferson's house on the lot shown by his plat. It showed that Jefferson's property did not encroach upon the Lees' property. However, Strickland admitted his survey did not purport to represent or follow the legal description set out in the 14 May 1980 judgment.
It is evident from the record that the trial court, in awarding Jefferson the property described in Strickland's plat, was simply making an equitable determination. As noted before, this was error. Moreover, no equitable issues were affirmatively asserted by Jefferson in this case, nor did he claim he owned any property other than the 100 × 100 foot lot awarded him by the 14 May 1980 judgment. Furthermore, the trial court erroneously instructed the advisory jury regarding the law on the ejectment issue.
Because there is conflicting evidence in the record, as to whether Jefferson now occupies that land contained within the legal description set out in the 1980 judgment, this court cannot decide as a matter of law that the Lees should prevail on their ejectment claim. Because of the trial court's erroneous determination regarding the ejectment claim, the issues of trespass and damages were never properly resolved.
*1243 Therefore, we conclude that the judgment below is against the great weight of the evidence and must be and is hereby reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
FAULKNER and ALMON, JJ., concur.
TORBERT, C.J., and ADAMS, J., concur specially.
APPENDIX A
*1244 APPENDIX B
TORBERT, Chief Justice (concurring specially).
I am in agreement with the majority opinion. I write separately to make some clarifying comments.
Lee claims title to a 40-acre tract of land, except for a 100 × 100-foot lot therein. Lee filed a suit in ejectment against Jefferson, the owner of the small lot. Jefferson's lot was the subject of previous litigation and had been described in the prior judgment.
It is clear that the lot owned by Jefferson as a result of the prior litigation is a square lot. The order of the trial court described the Jefferson lot as a parallelogram, which, having a common northeast corner, would necessarily encroach upon the property of the Lees. See appendix B. Accordingly, since this is an ejectment action, the trial court clearly erred in not recognizing the obvious encroachment.
ADAMS, Justice (concurring specially).
Although the advisory jury concluded that James Jefferson was entitled to the 100 × 100-foot piece of property surrounding his house, the one described in the judgment is a different 100 × 100-foot piece of property from that awarded him in the Doc Lamb Litigation. In order to reach this conclusion, the advisory jury must have, of necessity, applied equitable principles. In an ejectment suit, the plaintiff must win if he shows a superior legal title, without regard to any equities between the parties. Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. Butler, 287 Ala. 584, 253 So. 2d 511 (1971); Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. Brown, 47 Ala.App. 468, 256 So. 2d 894 (1971); and Blair v. Blair, 199 Ala. 480, 74 So. 947 (1917).
[1]  See appendix for plats of the properties described in this opinion.