Case Title: Watson v. Herring

Citation: 549 So. 2d 33

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1989-06-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
549 So. 2d 33 (1989)
Myrtie WATSON and Henry E. Orton
v.
Myrtle HERRING, et al.
87-699.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 23, 1989.
*34 Alice L. Anderson, Enterprise, for appellant Myrtie Watson.
Henry E. Orton, pro se.
Charles W. Fleming, Jr. of Lee and Fleming, Geneva, for appellees.
MADDOX, Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment quieting title and reforming a deed to real property located in Geneva County.
The dispute involves a tract of property covering three residential lots. It is undisputed that the Herring family had been in possession of the three lots from the mid-1940's until February 1963, when they sold one of the lots to Mr. and Mrs. Sam E. Dixon. In July 1964, the Dixons conveyed the lot to Myrtie Watson, the appellant. The Herrings retained title to the lot on each side of the Watson lot.
The controversy apparently developed as a result of an erroneous determination by the Geneva County Appraisal and Mapping Office on the actual boundaries of the Watson lot. Greg Harrison, of the Geneva County Appraisal and Mapping Office, testified that in 1978, when the last reappraisal of Geneva County property was completed, Watson was mistakenly assessed ad valorem taxes on one of the Herrings' lots, while the Herrings were mistakenly assessed ad valorem taxes on the lot belonging to Watson.
In 1986, Watson began to use the lot owned by the Herrings, and incorrectly assessed to her, as though it were her own. Watson attempted to demonstrate her ownership of the subject lot by filing a listing for taxation, placing a post on the property, placing "keep off" signs on the property, placing a chain on the property, and parking a Datsun pick-up truck on the property. Watson also wrote Mrs. Herring a letter that provided as follows:
In October 1986, the Herrings engaged the services of Charles Bowden to resurvey the Herrings' two lots and Watson's one lot, which was situated between the Herrings' two lots. The Herrings furnished Bowden copies of certain conveyances, which Bowden said he used in making his determination as to the actual location of Watson's lot. Bowden stated that he found an old fence, an iron pipe buried six inches deep, and another pipe buried three inches in the ground, all of which coincided with the copies of the conveyances furnished to him.
Even though the description in the deed is not completely clear, especially regarding the "point of beginning," the trial judge had before him the parties, the description in the deeds, and the result of the survey. After hearing the evidence ore tenus, in which there were many references to exhibits and much "pointing," he determined *35 that the interests of the parties could be enforced by reforming one deed, using the survey to establish the boundaries of the respective lots and to quiet title; the court ordered:
This case was tried ore tenus. In cases tried ore tenus, the trial court's judgment is presumed to be correct and it will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by credible evidence. Jones v. Henderson, 535 So. 2d 90, 91 (Ala.1988). This presumption is particularly appropriate where witnesses refer and point to exhibits and maps. White v. Boggs, 455 So. 2d 820, 822 (Ala. 1984). The judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and ALMON, ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.