### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE ATJAC KSON N O V E MB E R 1 7, 200 9 S es sio n MELVI N QUARLES, ET AL 

### . v. BARBARA ATKI NS SMI TH, ET AL 

### . D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C h a n ce ry C o u rt fo r F a y ette C o u n ty N o. 14332 W i l l i am C . C ol e, C hancel l or

N o. W 2009- 00514- C O A
- R 3- C V - F i l ed F ebruary 24, 2010

T hi s cas e i nvol ves a boundaryl i ne di s put e. Pl ai nt i ffs br oughts ui tt o enj oi n D efe ndant W al kerfr om ent er i ng pr oper t yt hey claim ed t o ow n. H ow ever , D efe ndantW al kerfi l ed a cou nter -cl ai m againstP l ai nti ffs asser t i ng , am on g o t her t hings, ow nershi p b yadv ers e pos s es s i on. T he tr i al cour tfound t hatt i t l e t o t he di s put ed prope r t y had vest ed i n D efe ndant W a l k e r , a n d t h e r e f

o r e , i tg r a n t e d s u mma r yj u d g me n ti n h i s f a v o r . W e a f

f i r m.

T enn. R . A pp. P . 3; A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent of

t he C hancery C ourt A f f i rm ed
A L AN E. H I GHERS , P .J ., W

. S. , , del i ver ed the opi ni on o f the C o u r t , i n w hi ch D AV I D R. F ARMER , J

. , and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J

. , j oi ned.
Jam es Stephen K i ng , M em ph i s, T enn essee, for t he ap pell ants , M el vin Q uarl es, C harlo tte Q uar l es , G l en H ay den and Cher y l H ay den
T h o ma s D. F o r r e s t e r , Co v i n g t o n , T e n n e s s e e , f o rt h e a p p e l l e e , J u n e Wa l k e r , J r . , a / k / a J

. G. W alke r, Jr.Th e 19 48 r ec or di ngin strum ent s tate s tha t 92

. 64 a cr es w er e co nv ey ed to D ef en dant Wa lker . 1 How ev er, a 19 83 tax map lists the p roperty at 1 02 acres. Tennesse e C ode Ann otated section 28- 2- 109 states: 2 Any pers on h ol di ngany

real estate o r land

of any kind, or any

leg al or equitab le interes t therein, who has paid, or whoand those through who m suc h p erson claim s hav e pa id, the state an d co unty

taxes on the sam e for m ore then twenty (20 ) y ears co ntinuo usly

prior to the (continu ed.. .) -2- OP I NI ON
I. F ACTS & P ROCEDURAL H I ST ORY Ju n e W a lk e r, Jr. (“ D e f

e n d a n t W a lk e r ” ) o b ta in e d o w n e rsh ip o f tw o tra c ts o f

lan d in Fay ett e Cou n ty , Te n n e s s e e , e n c o mpas s i ng appr oxi m at el y92. 64 acr es , on D ece m ber8, 1948, 1 b y T ru ste e ’s D e e d f

ro m h is p a re n ts, M r. an d M rs. J .G . W a lk e r. O n O c to b e r 7 , 2 0 0 3 , M e lv in Q uar l es , C har l ot t e Q uar l es , G l en H ay den, and C hery l H ay den ( “Pl ai nt i ffs ”) pur chas ed, fr om B arbar a A t ki ns Sm i t h ( “D efe ndantSm i t h”) , l and l ocat ed i n F ay et t e C ount y , T ennes s ee, w hi ch adj oi ns l and ow ned byD efe ndantW al ker

. T he boundaryl i ne betw een Pl ai nt i ffs ’ l and and D efe ndantW al ker ’ s l and i s i n di s put e. B ot h par t i es cl ai m t i t l e t o a par t i al l y w ooded and p a rtiallyo p e n f

ield f o u rte e n -a c re tra c t b o rd e re d b y D e f e n d a n t W a lk e r’s u n d isp u ted p ro p e rty t o t he w es tand Pl ai nt i ffs ’ undi s put ed pr oper t y t o t he eas t

. A boundary s ur veys how s a fe nce l i ne mar ked “A ” bor der i ng t he ea s t ern edge of t he di s put ed pr oper t yand a f ence l i ne mar ked

“ B ” p a rt ia lly b o rd e ri n g th e d is p u te d p ro p e rt y ’s w e s te rn e d g e . I n hi s aff

i davi t , M r . Q uar l es cl ai m s t hataft erpur chas i ng t he l and fro m D efe ndant Sm i t h, h e b eg an t o pl antgr as s s eeds w hen “[ t ] he r eadi ng on t he pl ant er ’ s acr eage count er m ad e m e su s pi ci ous t hatt he pr oper t ydi d notcont ai n t he 78 ac r es t hatI t houghtw e w ere pur chas i ng. ” T her efor e, he had t he pr oper t ys ur vey ed byJ ack M cA doo i n N ovember 2005. A ft ercompar i ng t he deed desc r i pt i ons of bot h Pl ai nt i ffs ’ deed a nd D efe ndantW al ker ’ s deed, M r . M cA doo det er m i ned thatt he deed d esc ri pt i ons do notover l ap, and thatt he di s put ed f o u r t e e n - a c r e t r a c t i s i n c l u d e d wi t h i n P l a i n t i f f s ’ d e e d

. T h u s , M r . M c Ad o o f o u n d t h a t t h e “ A” fenc e l i ne w as not t he pr oper t y boundary , butt hatPl ai nt i ffs ’ pr oper t yext ended w es tof t hat lin e . T hus , i n D ece m ber2006, Pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed s ui t agai ns t D efe ndantSm i t h forbr eac h of w arr antyof ti t l e and breach o f con t ract , and t heysued D efen dan tW al ker seeki ng t o est abli sh t he boundary li ne of thei radj oi ni ng pr oper t i es and s eeki ng an i nj unct i on t o pr event D efe ndantW al kerfr om ent er i ng t he di s put ed prope r t y . I n r es pons e, D efe ndantW al kerpl ed s ever al aff

i r m at i ve def

ens es , i ncl udi ng T ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed s ec ti o n 28- 2- 109 and 2(... continu ed) 2 date when any

qu estion arises in any of the courts of this state co ncernin gthe sam e, and who has had or who and those through whom suc h p erson claim s hav e had, such person ' s de ed, co nv ey an ce , grant

or othe r as suranc e of

titl e re co rd ed

in th e re g is te r' s of

fi ce o f th e co unty in which the lan d lies, for such period of more th an tw enty (20 ) y ears, shall b e pre sumed prim a facie to bethe leg al owner o f such land

.

Defen dant Walker’s “S tatem ent o f Undisputed F act s ” r elied u pon the A ffidav its of Defen dant 3 Walker an d A ssessor of Property Mark A. Ward, as well as the depositions of C harles Quarles an d D efendant Smith. -3- adver s e pos s es s i on pur s uantt o T ennes s ee Co d e A nnot at ed s ect i on 28- 2- 103. D efe ndant W a lk e r a lso a ss e rte d a c o u n ter -c laim a g a in st P lain tiff s, c laim in g tit le to th e d isp u ted p ro p e rty t hroug h the pay m ent of propert yt axes si nce 1 94 8 , o r, al t ernat i vely , t hroug h ad verse po sses si on or pres cri pti on , and asser t i ng T enn essee C od e A nn otat ed sect i on 28 -2- 10 3 as a d e f e n s e to e je c tm e n t.
D e f e n d a n t W a lk e r f

iled a m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t re g a rd in g h is c o u n ter -c laim agai ns tPl ai nt i ffs , cl ai m i ng i tw as “w i t houtdi s put e” thathe ha d adver s el ypos s es s ed the di s put ed pr oper t ys i nce 1948. I n s uppor tof hi s m ot i on for s um m ary j udgm ent , D efe ndant W al kerfi l ed a “St at ement of U ndi s put ed M at er i al Fact s ” on A pr i l 29, 2008, w hi ch pr ovi des 3 in p a rt:
W al kerhas openl y , adver s el yand exc l us i vel y pos s es s ed and occupi ed t o t he e x c lu sio n o f

a ll o th e rs th e d isp u ted p ro p e rty

. . . sin c e h e a c q u ire d o w n e rsh ip i n 1948.
W a lk e r’s p a re n ts e x c lu siv e lyp o ss e ss e d a n d o c c u p ied W a lk e r[ ’]s p ro p e rty i ncl udi ng t he pr oper t yi n di s put e t o t he exc l us i on of al l ot her s pr i ort her et o. Si nce 1948 W al kerhas excl us i vel y us ed, pos s es s ed and oc cupi ed the di s put ed propert yi n h i s far m i ng / cat t l e bu si ness. T he fe nce l i ne i ndi cat ed byt he l et t er“A ” on t he J ack A

. M cA doo s ur veyi s t he re c o g n ize d b o u n d a rylin e b e tw e e n W a lk e r a n d P l ai nti ffs[’] predecessors i n ti tle s i nce 1948 a nd w as t he r ecogni zed bounda r yl i ne pr i ort o 1948 byand betw een W al ker ’ s par ent s and the Pl ai nt i ffs [’ ] pr edec es s or s i n t i t l e. T he fenc e l i ne i ndi cat ed by l et t er “A ” on the boundarys ur veyof J ack M cA doo-4-

h as b ee n m aintaine d a s a b o u n d aryli n e f en ce b yW alke r an d P lai n ti ff s[’] pr edec es s or s i n t i t l e i ncl udi ng C har l i e Q uar l es , Pl ai nt i ffs ’ father/ father

- i n- l aw w ho l eas ed the pr oper t yfr om Pl ai n ti ffs [’ ] pr edec es s or s i n t i t l e form any y e a rs [ .]
T he fe nce i ndi cat ed byt he l et t er“B ” on the sur vey of J ack M cA doo al ong t he so u th w e st p o rtio n o f

th e d isp u ted p r o p e r ty in d ica ted b ya n “ o ld tre e w ith fenc e” w as a par t of an i nt ernal fenc e cons t ruct ed and mai nt ai ned byW al ker in h is ca tt le op era ti o n an d w as n ev er rec o g n ized b yW alke r or P lai n ti ff s[’] pr edec es s or s i n t i t l e as a boundaryfenc e.

. . . . C har l i e Q uar l es and W al kerm ai nt ai ned the reco g ni zed bounda r yfenc e, i ndi cat ed by t he l et t er “A ” on t he M cA doo s ur vey , byQ uar l es doi ng t he l abor a n d W a lk e r f

u rn ish in g th e f

e n c in g m a ter ial.
C har l es Q uar l es acknow l edged t hat not hi ng had cha nged aboutt he r ecogni zed b o u n d a rylin e f

e n c e s s in c e h e sta rte d lea sin g P lain tiff s[ ’] p re d e c e ss o rs in tit le p ro p e rt yin 1 9 9 2 [ .]
C har l es Q uar l es acknow l edges t h at t he di s put ed [pr oper t y ]

. . . has been o c c u p ie d b yW a lk e r s in c e h is k n o w le d g e o f th e p ro p e rt yin 1 9 9 2 [ .]
C h arl es Q uar l es w as aw ar e thats i nce he s t ar t ed l eas i ng t he Pl ai nt i ffs[’] pr edec es s or s i n t i t l e pr oper t yi n 1992 t hatW al kercl ai m ed al l t he pr oper t yon th e w e s t s id e o f

th e f e n c e s h o w n b yle tte r “ A ” [ .]

. . . . N otunt i l aft ert he M cA doo s ur vey dat ed N ovember 9, 2005 w as anyques t i on raised w ith the F ay ett e C o u n tyT ax A sses so r reg ard ing a d ispu ted b o u n d ary l i ne. D efe ndant , B arbar a A t ki ns Sm i t h, P lai nt i ffs [’ ] pr edec es s ori n t i t l e, pr ovi ded a P l atsh e h a d f

ou nd i n the pap erw ork of her[] [a] un t [, ] Franci s E arl y , M s. Sm i t h’ s pr edec es s or s i n t i t l e. T h e p lat . . . w a s p r e p a r e d F .W . C a rte r, a s u rv e y o r f ro m B ro w n sv ill e , T N in J ul y1958 and the boundaryl i ne s how n r egar di ng t he di s put ed por t i on of theThis findingis n ot ch alleng ed o n ap peal. 4 The trial court’s orde r grantingsumm ary j udgm ent to Defendant Walker was m ade final p ursuant 5 to Tenness ee R

ule o f C iv il Pro cedure 54 .02

. -5- p ro p e rtyis c o n sis ten t w ith W a lk e r’s b o u n d a ryc laim a n d a lso c o n sis ten t w ith t he h i st ori cal t ax assessorm aps. T he U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof A gr i cul tur al Far m Ser vi ces h ist o ri c ae r i al p h o tog rap h s sinc e 1 9 7 1 ref le c t[ ] b o u n d aryli n es c o n sist en t w ith W alke r’s c l a i m t o t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y. T he Pl ai nt i ffs nort hei rpr edec es s or s i n t i t l e have p os s es s ed, occupi ed or clai m ed orat t empt ed t o pos s es s [or ] occupyanypor t i on of the di s put ed p ro p e rtyf

ro m th e ti m e [ o f

] W a lk e r’s p o ss e ss io n in 1 9 4 8 u n til th is d isp u te a r o s e s o m e t i m e a f

t e rt h e N o v e m b e r9 , 2 0 0 5 M c A d o o s u r v e y. Pl ai nt i ffs have no know l edge ori nfor m at i on of any one pos s es s i ng t h e d i s put ed p rop ertyo ther tha n W alke r. Pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed a “R es pons e t o St at ement of U ndi s put ed M at er i al Fact s ” fi ve mont hs late r, o n S e p tem b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 , the d a te o f th e su m m a ryju d g m e n t h e a rin g , d e n y in g c e rta in al l egat i ons of fa ct , butadmi t t i ng t hatnei t hert hey , northe i rpr edec es s or s i n t i t l e, had “pos s e s s e d , o c c u p i e d o rc l a i me d o ra t t e mpt e d t o p o s s e s s [ o r ] o c c u p ya n yp o r t i o n o f [ t h e] dis put e d p r op e r t yfr om t he t i me [ of ] W a l ke r ’ s po s s e s s i on i n 1 94 8 u nt i l t hi s di s pu t e a rose s om et i m e af

t e rt h e Nov e mbe r9 , 2 0 0 5 M c Ado o Su r v e y . ” Th e yf u r t h e ra d mi t t e d t h a tt h ey w er e w i t houtknow l edge of any one ot her t han W al ker pos s es s i ng t he di s put ed prope r t y . T he t r i a l c o u r tr e f

u s e d t o c o n s i d e rP l a i n t i f f s ’ r e s p o n s e , f

i n d i n g i tu n t i m e l y. 4
T h e tri al co u rtg ran ted D ef en d an t W alke r’s m o ti o n fo r sum m aryj udgm entfi ndi ng that “the di s put ed pr oper t yhas been o p en ly , not or i ous l y , adver s el ypos s es s ed, occupi ed and cl ai m ed by [D ef

en d antW al ker ] s i nce 1948 pur s uantt o a r ecogni zed f ence l i ne betw een [D ef en d an t W alke r] an d P lai n ti ff s[’] p red ec esso rs i n ti tl e[ , an d ] [t]ha t [D ef en d an t W alke r] has acqui r ed t i t l e t o s ai d di s put ed pr oper t ybycomm on l aw pr es cr i pt i on . ” I n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o D efe ndant W al ker , t he tr i al cour tnot ed thateven i f i thad cons i der ed Pl ai nt i ffs’ unt i m el yfi l ed r es pons es , t hats um m aryj udgm entw oul d have none t hel es s been a p p ro p ria te. P lain tiff

s a p p e a l th e trial c o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t. 5We no te that Defen dant Walker’s co unter- claim cited only

Tennesse e C odeAnn o t ated se ction 28- 2- 6 103, which “m ay

be utiliz ed b y

the adv erse h older only in the d efense of a suit an d n ot as a means to bar use by the rightful o wne r.” Cu m ulus , 22 6 S. W .3 d at37 6 ( c i t i ng Kittel v . S teger , 121 Tenn. 400, 117 S.W. 50 0, 50 3 (Te nn . 1 90 9) ). A ddit io na ll y , P la inti ff s fr ame the issu e on

a pp ea l a s whe th er

D ef en dant Wa lker ’s cond uct co nstitutes adv erse p ossessio n su ch th at sum m ary judgm ent w as ap propriate. -6- II. I SSUES P RESENT ED A ppel l ant s have t i m el yfi l ed thei rnot i ce of appea l and pr es entt he fol l ow i ng i s s ue for revi ew , sum m ari zed as fo l l ow s: 1

. W h ethe r t h e tri al co u rterred in g ran ti n g su m m aryjud g m en t t o D ef en d an t W alke r.

III . S T AN DA RD OF R EVIE W In th e in s ta n t case , w e a re a sk ed to rev iew the tri al co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j udgm ent

. Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e w hen “there is n o g enui ne i s s ue as t o any ma t e r i a l f

a c ta n d

. . . t h e mo v i n g p a r t yi s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e r o f l a w. ” Te n n . R. C i v. P. 56. 04. R ul i ng on a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm entdoes noti nvol ve di s put ed i s s ues o f f a c t, b u t o n ly q u e s tio n s o f la w . O wner- O

pe r ator I

nde p. D r i v e rs Ass ’ n v . Conco r d EF S, I nc. , 59 S. W

. 3d 63, 68 (T en n . 2 0 0 1 ). T h u s, o u r st an d ard fo r rev iew ing a g ran t of su m m ary j ud gm ent i s de novo w ith n o p re s u m p tio n o f c o rr e c tn e s s a s to th e tr ia l co u rt ’s f in d in g s . See W ebber v. State Far m Mut . A uto. I ns. Co. , 49 S. W

. 3d 265, 269 ( T enn. 2001)

. T he evi dence m u st b e v iew e d “ in th e lig h t m o st f a v o r a b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a rty ,” a n d a ll rea so n a b le i n f e re n c e s m u s t b e d ra w n in th e n o n -m o v in g p a rt y ’s f a v o r. Stap le s v . CB L & Ass ocs. , 15 S .W .3 d 8 3 , 8 9 (T e n n . 2 0 0 0 ).

I V. D I SC US SI ON A . A dvers e Poss es s i on T he tr i al cour t ’ s or der gr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm ent t o D efe ndant W al keri s s om ew hat un cl ear; ho w ever, i tapp ears the grant w as based on both a fi nd i ng of co m m on l aw adv ers e p o sses sion an d a f

ind in g o f co m m o n law p resc ri p ti o n . A s w e stated ab o v e, th e tri al co u rt 6 r efus ed t o cons i derPl ai nt i ffs ’ r es pons e t o D efe ndantW al ker ’s s t at ement of undi s put ed ma t e r i a l f

a c t s . P l a i n t i f

f s d o n o tc h a l l e n g e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s a c t i o n o n a p p e a l , a n d t h u s , we m ustno w determ i ne w h e th e r, un der D efen dan tW al ker’ s und i sputed m at eri al fact s, D e f e n d a n t W a lk e r w a s e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . S e e g e n e r a l l

y Ow ens v.-7-

B r is t olMot orSpeedway, I nc. , 77 S. W

. 3d 771, 775 ( T enn. C t

. A pp. 2001) ( s t at i ng t hatt he fac tt hatt he pl ai nt i ff’ s r es pons e t o t he def endant ’ s s t at ement of m at er i al fac t s w as notfi l ed u n til th e d a yb e f

o re th e su m m a ryju d g m e n t h e a r in g w o u ld h a v e ju stif ied th e trial c o u rt in d isr eg ard ing the p lai n ti ff ’s resp o n se “ o n that b asis alon e.”) (cit ing T en n . R

. C iv. P. 56

. 0 3 ).
“T h e d o ctri n e o f a d v erse p o sses sion is of ten d esc ri b ed as a li m it ati o n o n the re co v ery o f r e a l p r o p e rty ; th e lim itatio n p e rio d m a yo p e ra te n o t o n lya s a b a r to re c o v e r a d v e rse ly pos s es s ed prope r t y but i t m ay al s o ves t t he adver s e hol derw i t h t i t l e. ” C um ulus Broad. , I nc. v. S h im , 2 2 6 S .W .3 d 3 6 6 , 3 7 5 (T e n n . 2 0 0 7 ) ( c itin g R a lp h E . B o y e r, Sur vey of the Law of P ro p e rty 233, 236 ( 3d ed. 1981) )

. T he pol i cy r at i onal es behi nd adver s e pos s es s i on ar e “( 1) t he s t abi l i zat i on of unce r t ai n boundar i es t hr ough t he pas s age of ti m e; (2 ) r es pectfort he appar entow ner s hi p of t he adve r s e pos s es s orw ho t r ans fer s hi s i nt er es t ; and ( 3) as s ur ance s of t he l ong- t er m pr oduct i vi t yof t he l and. ” I d. a t 3 7 6

. “In o u r st ate, co m m o n law ad v erse p o sses sion rests up o n the p rop o sit ion ‘th at, w h ere one has r emai ned i n uni nt errupt ed and c ont i nuous pos s es s i on of l and for 20 y ear s , a gr antor d ee d w i l l be pr es um ed. ’ ” I d. at376- 77 ( quot i ng Fer gus on v. P r i nce , 1 3 6 Te n n . 5 4 3 , 190 S. W

. 5 4 8 , 5 5 2 ( Te n n . 1 9 1 6 ) )

. To e s t a b l i s h c o mmon l a w a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n , a s w i t h a sta tu to rya d v e rse p o ss e ss io n c laim , “ th e p o s se ss io n m u st h a v e b e e n e x c lu siv e , ac tu a l, adver s e, cont i nuous , open, and not or i ous fort he r equi s i t e per i od of t i m e. ” I d. at 377 ( ci t i ng High t ow er v. P end ergrass , 6 6 2 S .W .2 d 9 3 2 , 9 3 5 n .2 (T e n n . 1 9 8 3 )). A d v e rse p o ss e ss io n is a ques t i on of fac t , and t he par t y cl ai m i ng ow ner s hi p byadver s e pos s es s i on bear s t he bur den o f p ro v in g th e re q u is ite e le m e n ts b yc le a r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e . I d. ( ci t i ng K i r km an v. Br o wn , 9 3 T e n n . 4 7 6 , 2 7 S .W

. 7 0 9 , 7 1 0 (T e n n . 1 8 9 4 ); O ’ B r i en v. W

aggoner , 20 T enn. A pp. 145, 96 S. W

. 2d 170, 176 ( T enn. C t

. A pp. 1936) )

. “W hen an a dver s e pos s es s orhol ds t he l and fora per i od of t w enty y ear s , even abs ent any as s ur ance or col or of t i t l e, t he t i t l e ves t s i n t hat pos s es s or . ” I

d. ( ci t i ng C o o ke v . Sm ith , 7 2 1 S

. W

. 2 d 2 5 1 , 2 5 5 -56 (T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 8 6 )).
O n a p p e a l, P la in tiff

s a rg u e th a t su m m a ryju d g m e n t w a s im p ro p e rlyg ra n ted to D efe ndantW al kerbeca us e D efe ndantW al keronl y“occ as i onal l y ” us ed the di s put ed pr oper t y . Speci fi cal l y , Pl ai nt i ffs cont end thatD efe ndant W al ker ’ s cut t i ng of the t i m beron t he w oo ded po rt i on of the dis pu t ed p ropertyi n 1 99 7 w as i nsuff i ci ent t o co nst i tute adverse pos s es s i on as t o t he w ooded por t i on, and thatD efe ndantW al ker ’ s “nake d as s er t i on” thathe “r egul ar l ym ai nt ai ned cow s and/ or gr ew hay on t he pr oper t y ” w i t houtdet ai l i ng “how oft en he cuthayand how m uch t i m e he ha d cow s on t he l and” di d notes t abl i s h adver s e pos s es s i on as t o t he open f

i el d por t i on of t he di s put ed pr oper t y . Pl ai nt i ffs ci t e t o S t o ke rv
. Br o wn , 583 S. W

. 2d 765, 767 ( T enn. 1979) , w her ei n t he C ourt stat ed t hat“[o] cca s i onal gr azi ng and cult i vati on are i nsuff

i ci ent t o est abli sh adv ers e po sses si on [, ]” as w el l as B one v. Loggi ns , 652 S

. W

. 2d 75 8, 76 0 ( T enn . C t

. A pp . 19 82 ), i n w hich t his C ou rt st at ed that “[t ]he occasi on al use o f lan d b yc u tti n g tre e s, n o m a tter h o w lo n g , w ill n o t al one c o n s titu te a d v e rs e p o s s e s s io n .”-8-

( emphasi s added) ( ci t i ng C oal & I r on C o. v. C oppi nger , 95 T enn. 526, 530, 32 S. W

. 465, 466 (1 8 9 5 ); C us i ck v

. C ut

s haw , 3 4 T e n n . A p p . 2 8 3 , 2 9 2 2 3 7 S .W .2 d 5 6 3 , 5 6 7 (1 9 4 8 ))

. Pl ai nt i f f s ’ a r g u me n to v e r l o o k s o n e k e ydet ai l : D efe ndantW al ker ’ s adver s e pos s es s i on c laim is n o t b a s e d s o le ly o n h is lo g g in g , fa rm in g , an d c a ttl e a c tiv iti e s. A s s u b m itt e d in D efe ndantW al ker ’ s s t at ement of undi s put ed mat er i al fac t s , t he di s put ed pr oper t y has been encl os ed w i t hi n D efe ndant W al ker ’ s r ecogni zed bounda r yfenc e l i ne s i nce 1948 a nd nei t her Pl ai nt i ffs nort hei rpr edec es s or s i n t it le quest i oned D efe ndantW al ker ’ s pos s es s i on of t he di s put ed pr oper t yform or e than fi ftyy ear s . I n E r ck v

. C hur ch , 87 T enn. 575, 11 S. W

. 794, 7 9 5 -9 6 (T e n n . 1 8 8 9 ), an a d v e rse p o ss e ss o r, m ista k e n a s to h is p ro p e rty ’s b o u n d a ry , b u ilta fen ce fifty feetont o hi s nei ghbor ’ s pr oper t y . O urSupr eme C our tul t i m at el yhel d t hatno a d v e rse p o ss e ss io n h a d o c c u rre d b e c a u se th e re q u isite t im e p e r io d h a d n o t b e e n m e t; h o w e v e r, i t r e c o g n iz e d t h a t s u c h p o s s e s s io n o th e rw is e q u a lif ie d a s a d v e rs e . I

d. at794. “Typi cal l y , fenc i ng i s i ndi ci a of ow ner s hi p. ” Cum ulus , 226 S. W

. 3d at377 ( ci t i ng B e n sd o rff v . Uih lein , 1 3 2 T e n n . 1 9 3 , 1 7 7 S .W . 4 8 1 , 4 8 2 (T e n n . 1 9 1 5 )); s ee al s o W i l s on v. P r i ce , 195 S .W .3 d 6 6 1 , 6 6 7 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) (“ [ F ]e n c in g a p ro p e rtyd e m o n stra tes a c lea r c laim o f o w n ersh ip[

. ]”).
I tm at t er s nott hatD efe ndantW al kers eemi ngl ydi d not rea li ze thathe w as encr oachi ng upon hi s nei ghbor ’ s l and. O urSupr eme C our thas r ecogni zed the “pr operrul e” re g a rd in g a m ista k e n b o u n d a rylin e a s f o llo w s: [I ] n t he abs ence of posi t i ve proof or unambi guous ci r cumst ance s s how i ng t hat a pos s es s i on i s ori s notadver s e, t he exc l us i ve pos s es s i on and us e of the l and a re p re s u m e d to b e a d v e rs e , it is n o t n e c e ss a ry to sh o w a n in ten tio n to h o ld an d clai m the propert

y i n s pit e of the facttha tthe legalt i t l e m ay b e i n a no ther. T he pos s es s i on of one w ho hol ds pr oper t y as h is ow n i s adver s e t o al l t he w or l d, al t hough he neve rhear d of a n ad v erse cl ai m . . . . T he fa ctt hatt he occupa ntm i ght , i f he kne w t hathe w as on hi s nei ghbor ' s l and, r ecogni ze a nd a c c e d e to th e latte r' s title, d o e s n o t af f e c t th e a d v e rse c h a r a c te r o f h is p o s s e s s io n , w h e re , b e c a u se th e re h a s n e v e r b e e n a n y q u e stio n o r d o u b t a s to the l ocat i on of the boundar y, he pos s es s es and us es the pr oper t y as his ow n, and does notr ecogni ze oracc ede t o anys uper i ort i t l e.

I d. a t 3 7 8 (q u o tin g A n n o ta tio n , P os s es s i on i n I gnor ance of

, orU nderMis t ake as t o, B oundar y Li ne as A dver

s e, 8 0 A

. L

. R

. 1 5 5 , 1 5 7 ( 1 9 3 2 ) ( s u p e r c e d e d b y A dver s e Poss es s i on D ue to I gn oran ce or Mistake a s t o B ou nd ari es, 9 7 A

. L

. R

. 1 4 (19 3 5 )) ( em p h asis ad d ed )).We no te that Plaintiffs did cite to section 28- 2- 110 in their response to D efendant Walker’s motion 7 for sum m ary judgm ent. -9- B ecause w e fi nd , based o n D efen dan tW al ker’ s s t a t e mentof un di s pu t e d mat e ri al fact s, that the d ispu ted p rop ertyw as e n clos ed w ith in D ef en d an t W alke r’s reco g n ized b o u n d ary fenc e fora per i od of m or e th an fi ftyy ear s pr i ort o t he r ai s i ng of anyques t i on r egar di ng ow ner s h ip, w e af

fi r m t he tr i al cour t ’ s fi ndi ng of comm on l aw adver s e pos s es s i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e nee d not cons i der w hether t he el ement s of comm on l aw pr es cr i pt i on have b e e n e s ta b lis h e d

.
B . P aym en t of T ax es

N ext , w e co n s i d e rPl a i nt i ffs ’ ar gum entt hatD efe ndantW al keri s barr ed fr om cl ai m i ng t i t l e t o the di sputed propert y by T enn essee C od e A nn otat ed sect i on 28 -2- 11 0, w hich st at es: ( a) A nyper s on havi ng anycl ai m t o r eal es t at e orl and of a nyki nd, ort o any l egal or equi t abl e i nt er es tt her ei n, t he s ame havi ng been s ubj ectt o as s es s m ent f o rs t a t e a n d c o u n t yt a x e s , wh o a n d t h o s e t h r o u g h wh o m s u c h pe r s o n c l a i ms have f ai l ed t o h av e the s ame as s es s ed and t o payanys t at e and c ount yt axes t her eon fora per iod o f m or e than tw enty( 20) y ear s , s hal l be for everbarr ed fr om br i ngi ng any act i on i n l aw ori n equi t yt o r ecove rt he s ame, ort o r ecove r a n yre n ts o r p ro f

its th e re f ro m in a n yo f

th e c o u rt s o f

th is s ta te

. ( b) T hi s s ect i on s hal l notappl yt o per s ons underei ght een ( 18) y ear s of age or t o per s ons of uns ound m i nd i f s ui ts hal l be bro u g h t b yt hem, oranyone cl ai m i ng t hr ough t hem, w i t hi n thr ee ( 3) y ear s aft ert he r emoval of s uch d is a b ility. (c) N othi ng i n thi s sect i on shal l bar a person from bri ng i ng an acti on t o co ntes t the lap se o f a m inera l i n terest w ith in the p eriod p rov ided b y§ 6 6 -5-1 0 8 (f).

Pl ai nt i ffs m ai nt ai n t hatt heypai d t axes on t he di s put ed pr oper t y , and t hus , D efe ndantW al ker i s pr ecl uded fr om cl ai m ing ti t l e t o s uch. D efe ndantW al kerdi s put es Pl ai nt i ffs ’ al l egat i on t hatt heypai d pr oper t yt axes on t he di s put ed pr oper t y , and he f ur t her as s er t s t hat Pl ai nt i ffs m a yn o t n o w ra ise se c tio n 2 8 -2 -1 1 0 a s a n a f f ir m a tiv e d e f

e n se b e c a u se it w a s n o t ra ise d in t heirpleadi ng s. 7

W e n ee d n o t determ ine w h ethe r P lai n ti ff s w aive d D ef

en d an t W alke r’s all eg ed fa il u re-10-

t o paypr oper t yt axes as a defens e, as w e fi nd t he s t atut e i nappl i cabl e t o t hi s cas e. “Tennes s ee Code A nnot at ed s ect i on 28- 2- 110 w as enac t ed i n or dert o fac i l i t at e the col l ect i on of pr oper t yt axes bas ed upon pr oper t yeval uat i ons . ” Cum ulus , 226 S. W

. 3d at 381. A s our Supr eme C our ts t at ed, T ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed s ect i on 28- 2- 110 s houl d nots er ve as a bart o a c laim o f a d v e rse p o ss e ss io n w h e n th e tra c ts a re c o n tig u o u s, a re lativ e lysm a ll a re a is a t issu e , an d th e a d jac e n t o w n e rs m a k in g c laim s o f o w n e rsh ip h a v e p a id th e ir re sp e c tiv e re a l e sta te ta x e s. T o h o ld o th e rw ise w o u ld e f f e c tiv e ly e lim in a te th e a d v e rs e p o s s e s s io n o f a n yp a rt o f

a n a d jo in in g tr a c t.

I d. I n t hi s cas e, Pl ai nt i ffs acknow l edge thateac h par t ypai d t he pr oper t yt axes due on hi s or herr es pect i ve undi s put ed pr oper t y . A ddi t i onal l y , w e fi nd t hatt he fourt een- acr e di s put ed p ro p e r tyis “ re lativ e lysm a ll” a s c o m p a re d to th e o v e r 1 5 0 a c re s o f u n d isp u ted p ro p e rty o w n e d b y th e p a rties

. A s ev id e n c e o f its re lativ e ly sm a ll siz e , w e n o te th a t itw a s n o t u n til t he s pr i ng of 2005–appr oxi m at el ya y earand a ha l f af t erPl aint i ffs pur chas ed the pr oper t y–t hatM r . Q uar l es fi r s ts us pect ed thathi s pr oper t ydi d noti ncl ude t he s eventy - ei ght acr es he bel i eved he pur chas ed. A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd t hat T ennes s ee C od e A n n o ta t ed s e c t i o n 2 8

- 2

- 1 1 0 d o e s n o t a c t a s a b a r t o D e f e n d a n t W a l k e r ’ s c l a i m t o t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y. B eca us e w e have found t hatD efe ndantW al kerhas s at i s fi ed the r equi r ement s forcomm on law ad v erse p o sses sion , an d h is claim is no t barred b y2 8 -2-1 1 0 , w e a ff irm the tri al co u rt ’s g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t t o D e f e n d a n t Q u a rl e s . A ll r e m a in in g is s u e s a re p re te rm itte d

.

V. C ONC L US I ON

F o r th e af

o rem en ti o n ed rea so n s, w e a ff irm the tri al co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary ju d g m e n t to D e f

e n d a n t W a lk e r. C o sts o f th is a p p e a l ar e tax e d to A p p e llan ts, M e lv in Q uar l es , C har l ot t e Q uar l es , G l en H ay den, and C hery l H ay den, forwhi c h e xecut i on m ayi s s ue i f n e c e s s a r y.

_________________________________ A LA N E. H I G H ER S, P. J

. , W

. S.