FILED

May 6, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON

) RHEA COUNTY

GI LES E. ROBERSON a nd wi f e ) 03A01- 9509- CH- 00299

HAZEL B. ROBERSON )

)

Pl a i ntif f s - Appe lla nt s )

)

)

v. ) HON. J EFFREY F. STEWART,

) CHANCELLOR

 )

MARY MARGARET ( DARWI N) )

WASSON a nd PUG MARTI N, )

I ndi vi dua l l y, a nd d/ b/ a )

CENTURY 21 PUG MARTI N REALTY )

a nd STEPHEN N. SNYDER a nd )

wi f e , BARBARA L. SNYDER )

)

De f e nda nt s - Appe l l ees ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED

HOWARD L. UPCHURCH OF PI KEVI LLE FOR APPELLANTS

MATHEW D. BROWNFI ELD a nd J OHN R. ANDERSON OF CHATTANOOGA FOR

APPELLEES STEPHEN N. SNYDER a nd wi f e BARBARA L. SNYDER

O P I N I O N

 Godda r d, P. J .

Thi s s ui t wa s f i l e d by Pl a i nt i f f s Gi l e s E. Robe r s on a nd

hi s wi f e Hazel B. Robe r s on aga i ns t De f e nda nt s Ma r y Ma r ga r e t
1 Mr s . Wa s s on cont r a c t e d wi t h Ms . Ma r t i n t o s e l l her pr ope r t y .

2

( Da r wi n) Wa s s on a nd Pug Ma r t i n, 1 i ndi vi dua l l y, a nd d/ b/ a Ce nt ur y

21 Pug Ma r t i n Re a l t y. The Pl a i nt i f f s s ought t o ha ve t he Cour t

de c l a r e t ha t a s t r i p of l a nd a ppr oxi ma t e l y 18 f e e t i n wi dt h,

t i t l e d i n t he na me of Mr s . Wa s s on, whi c h l a y be t we e n t wo s e pa r a t e

t r a c t s owne d by t he m ( s e e a ppe ndi x) " t o ha ve be e n a ba ndone d a nd

t o be non- e xi s t e nt . " The c ompl a i nt wa s l a t e r a me nde d t o a dva nc e

t he t he or y of a dve r s e pos s e s s i on, a nd s t i l l l a t e r t o a dd a s

pa r t i e s De f e nda nt St e phe n N. Snyde r a nd wi f e Ba r ba r a L. Snyde r ,

who ha d pur c ha s e d t he pr ope r t y f r om Mr s . Wa s s on.

The Tr i a l Cour t gr a nt e d a s umma r y j udgme nt i n f a vor of

t he De f e nda nt s a s t o t he a dve r s e pos s e s s i on t he or y a nd a t t he

c onc l us i on of t he Pl a i nt i f f s ' pr oof s us t a i ne d t he De f e nda nt s '

mot i on t o gr a nt a j udgme nt i n t he i r f a vor , whi c h a t t ha t poi nt

wa s pr e di c a t e d onl y upon t he a ba ndonme nt t he or y.

The Pl a i ntif f s a ppe a l ins i s ting tha t the Tr i a l Cour t

wa s i n e r r or i n gr a nt i ng s umma r y j udgme nt be c a us e t he r e i s a

di s put e of ma t e r i a l f a c t s , a nd in la t e r di s mi s s i ng the i r s ui t

be c a us e t he e vi de nc e pr e ponde r a t e s a ga i ns t hi s f i ndi ngs .

As to the is s ue s r a i s e d, we a r e de a ling with two

s e pa r a t e s t a nda r ds of r e vi e w. I n r e vi e wi ng t he a c t i on of t he

Tr i a l Cour t i n gr a nt i ng s umma r y j udgme nt , we a r e r e qui r e d t o t a ke

t he s t r onge s t l e gi t i ma t e vi e w of a l l t he e vi de nc e i n f a vor of t he
3

non- movi ng pa r t i e s a nd t o i ndul ge a l l r e a s ona bl e i nf e r e nc e s i n

t he i r f a vor . Byr d v. Ha l l , 847 S. W. 2d 208 ( Te nn. 1993) .

The Supr e me Cour t , i n City of Col umbi a v. C. F. W. Cons t .

Co. , 557 S. W. 2d 734, 740 ( Te nn. 1977) , a r t i c ul a t e s t he s t a nda r d t o

be us e d i n non- j ur y c a s e s f or di s mi s s a l a t t he c onc l us i on of t he

pl a i nt i f f ' s pr oof , whi c h we e qua t e wi t h a mot i on f or j udgme nt i n

de c l a r a t or y j udgme nt c a s e s , a nd di s t i ngui s he s t ha t s t a nda r d f r om

t he one t o be us e d i n j ur y c a s e s :

Mot i ons f or di s mi s s a l i n non- j ur y c a s e s unde r Rul e

41. 02( 2) , Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e , a nd

mot i ons f or di r e c t e d ve r di c t s i n j ur y c a s e s unde r Rul e

50, Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e , a r e s ome wha t

s i mi l a r , but , t he r e i s a f unda me nt a l di f f e r e nce be t ween

t he two motions , in tha t, in the jur y c a s e , the judge

i s not t he t r i e r of f a c t s whi l e i n t he non- j ur y c a s e he

i s t he t r i e r of t he f act s . I n t he j ur y cas e he mus t

c ons i de r t he e vi de nc e mos t f a vor a bl y f or t he pl a i nt i f f ,

a l l ow al l r eas ona bl e i nf e r e nces i n pl a i nt i f f ' s f a vor

a nd di s r e ga r d a l l c ount e r a c t i ng e vi de nc e , a nd, s o

c ons i de r e d, i f t he r e i s any ma t e r i a l evi de nce t o

s uppor t a ve r di c t f or pl a i nt i f f , he mus t de ny t he

mot i on. But i n t he non- j ur y c a s e , whe n a mot i on t o

di s mi s s i s ma de at t he cl os e of pl a i nt i f f ' s cas e unde r

Rul e 41. 02( 2) , the tr i a l judge mus t impa r tia lly we i gh

a nd eva l ua t e t he evi de nce i n t he s a me ma nne r as t hough

he we r e ma ki ng f i ndi ngs of f a c t a t t he c onc l us i on of

a l l of t he e vi de nc e f or bot h pa r t i e s , de t e r mi ne t he

f act s of t he case, appl y t he l a w t o t hos e f act s , and,

i f t he pl a i nt i f f ' s c a s e ha s not be e n ma de out by a

pr e ponde r a nc e of t he e vi de nc e , a j udgme nt ma y be

r e nde r e d a ga i ns t the pl a i ntif f on the me r its , o r , the

t r i a l judge , in hi s di s c r e tion, ma y de c line to r e nde r

j udgme nt unt i l t he c l os e of a l l t he e vi de nc e . The

a c t i on s houl d be di s mi s s e d i f on t he f a c t s f ound a nd

t he a ppl i c a bl e l a w t he pl a i nt i f f ha s s hown no r i ght t o

r e lie f .

The Tr i a l Cour t , i n gr a nt i ng a s umma r y j udgme nt a s t o

t he t he or y of a dve r s e pos s e s s i on, s t a t e d t he f ol l owi ng:
4

The Cour t i s of t he opi ni on t ha t a pa r t i a l Summa r y

J udgme nt s houl d be gr a nt e d i n f a vor of t he De f e nda nt ,

St e phe n N. a nd Ba r ba r a Snyde r on t he i s s ue of a dve r s e

pos s e s s i on. The i s s ue of a dve r s e pos s e s s i on woul d

r e qui r e the Pl a i ntif f s to e s t a blis h tha t ove r the ye a r s

t he y ha ve by ope n, hos t i l e a nd not or i ous us e of t he

pr ope r t y i n que s t i on pos s e s s e d i t t o t he e xc l us i on of

t he r i ght f ul owne r . The Pl a i nt i f f s c a nnot a s s e r t a s a

ma tte r of la w to ha ve c ol or of title to the s t r i p of

l a nd i n que s t i on. The i r de e d s pe c i f i c a l l y r e f e r r e d t o

t he i r pr ope r t y l i ne s be i ng bounde d by a " pr i va t e l a ne "

whi c h i s a l s o t he s t r i p of l a nd i n que s t i on i n t hi s

cas e . Fur t he r , t he De f e nda nt s and t he i r pr e decess or s -

i n- t i t l e t hr ough t he va r i ous de e ds of c onve ya nc e ,

gr a nt e d t he us e of s a i d s t r i p of l a nd t o t he Pl a i nt i f f s

a nd t he i r pr e de c e s s or s - i n- t i t l e . Thi s gr a nt of t he us e

of thi s s t r i p of la nd to the Pl a i ntif f s a nd the i r

pr e decess or - i n- t i t l e woul d de f eat a cl a i m t o adve r s e

pos s e s s i on i n a nd of i t s e l f . None of t he gr a nt s

a l l owi ng t he us e i n a nywa y pl a c e s a r e s t r i c t i on on t he

us e , ot he r t ha n t o s a y i t c a nnot be a n e xc l us i ve us e

a nd t he s t r i p of l a nd i s t he r e f or t he be ne f i t of t he

Pl a i nt i f f a nd ot he r l a nd owne r s s e r vi c e d by t he s t r i p

of l a nd.

No e vi de nc e wa s i nt r oduc e d by t he Pl a i nt i f f s t o

c ont r a di c t t he Tr i a l Cour t ' s f i ndi ngs of f a c t , whi c h a r e

s uppor t e d by e vi de nc e i nt r oduc e d by t he De f e nda nt s .

Af t e r a he a r i ng a s t o t he a ba ndonme nt t he or y, t he Tr i a l

Cour t gr a nt e d t he De f e nda nt s ' mot i on f or j udgme nt a t t he

c onc l us i on of t he Pl a i nt i f f s ' pr oof be c a us e i t " ha d not r i s e n t o

t he s t a nda r d t ha t i s r e qui r e d by c l e a r or c onvi nc i ng pr oof of a n

a ba ndonme nt . " Thi s s t a nda r d wa s ma nda t e d by Cottr e ll v. Da ni e l ,

30 Te nn. App. 339, 205 S. W. 2d 973 ( 1947) , whe r e i n t hi s Cour t ,

quot i ng f r om a Supr e me Cour t c a s e , s t a t e d, " t he r e mus t be s ome

c l ear and unmi s t a ka bl e af f i r ma t i ve act i ndi cat i ng a pur pos e t o

r e pudi a t e t he owne r s hi p. "
5

Our r e vi e w of t he r e c or d pe r s ua de s us t ha t - - a s t o bot h

t he Tr i a l Cour t ' s a c t i ons ( gr a nt i ng a s umma r y j udgme nt a s t o t he

a dve r s e pos s e s s i on t he or y; gr a nt i ng t he De f e nda nt s j udgme nt a s t o

t he a ba ndonme nt t he or y) - - t hi s i s a n a ppr opr i a t e c a s e f or

a f f i r ma nc e unde r Rul e 10( a ) of t hi s Cour t .

For t he f or e goi ng r e a s ons t he j udgme nt of t he Tr i a l

Cour t i s a f f i r me d a nd t he c a us e r e ma nde d f or s uc h f ur t he r

pr oc e e di ngs , i f a ny, a s ma y be ne c e s s a r y a nd c ol l e c t i on of c os t s

be l ow. Cos t s of a ppe a l a r e a dj udge d a ga i ns t t he Robe r s ons a nd

t he i r s ur e t y. 

_______________________________

Hous t on M. Godda r d, P. J .
6

CONCUR:

________________________________

He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

________________________________

Cl i f f or d E. Sa nde r s , Sp. J .