Title: Harris v. Pinelog Properties, Inc.
Citation: 474 So. 2d 1113
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: August 2, 1985

474 So. 2d 1113 (1985)
Charles William HARRIS
v.
PINELOG PROPERTIES, INC.
84-345.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
August 2, 1985.
Ronnie L. Williams, Mobile, for appellant.
James R. Owen of Owen, Ball &amp; Simon, Bay Minette, for appellee.
ADAMS, Justice.
Defendant Charles Harris appeals from the Baldwin County Circuit Court's judgment wherein the court held that Pinelog Properties, Inc., owned a fee simple title to approximately ten acres of land. We affirm.
Briefly, the facts of this case are as follows:
George P. Woolf testified at trial that he purchased the ten acres of land which is the subject of this action in 1962, and immediately *1114 thereafter went into possession of the property, cut timber himself and allowed M.D. Cox Timber Company to cut timber on the property. According to Woolf, Carey Harris cut timber for him in 1973 and 1977. Woolf leased the property to A.G. Moore for hunting purposes in 1972, and Moore hunted on the property nearly every weekend during hunting season from 1972 until Woolf sold the property to Pinelog Properties, Inc. Moore had also planted food crops and placed tree stands on the property.
Woolf assessed and paid taxes on the property from 1962 until 1983, and he also leased the property for oil, gas, and mineral purposes twice during that period. In 1983, Woolf sold the ten acres of wild, uncultivated land to Odell Robinson as president of Pinelog Properties, Inc. On September 15, 1983, Pinelog filed an action to quiet title to the ten-acre tract. The case was tried to the court sitting without a jury on November 6, 1984, and the court made the following findings of fact:
Harris appeals from this judgment, arguing that the acts of ownership on the part of Woolf are just the type of sporadic acts this Court has held are insufficient to show adverse possession. Harris maintains that Pinelog failed to meet its burden of proving that Woolf was the exclusive owner of the property and that no one else exercised any control over the property. Moreover, Harris *1115 contends that he and his family engaged in activities which evidenced their possession of the property, such as leasing the property for hunting purposes and burying deceased family members on the land.
In Thomas v. Davis, 410 So. 2d 889 (Ala. 1982), we discussed the standard of review to be used in a case like the one sub judice, stating:
410 So. 2d  at 892.
Therefore, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the trial court's findings were clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust, thus requiring a reversal.
In this case, it appears that Woolf indeed engaged in activities which were sufficient to establish his claim of ownership of the property. In Hand v. Stanard, 392 So. 2d 1157 (Ala.1980), this Court stated:
392 So. 2d  at 1160. Also, as this Court stated in Smith v. Cook, 220 Ala. 338, 124 So. 898 (1929):
220 Ala. at 341, 124 So.  at 900.
We are of the opinion that there is credible evidence to support the trial court's resolution of this case. The land in question is uncultivated, and only suitable for hunting, raising animals, and for planting some crops. From 1962 until 1983, timber was cut five times on the property. R.L. Cox testified that timber is usually cut from property like this every ten or twelve years. In addition to cutting timber, Woolf, Pinelog's predecessor in title, paid the taxes on the property for over twenty years, and leased the property for hunting, as well as for oil, gas, and mineral purposes. These actions of Woolf were clearly those of an owner of property.
Harris also argues that Woolf's possession was not exclusive, as members of his family are buried on the land. The trial court took this into consideration, and severed *1116 the part of the property which serves as a cemetery from the ten-acre tract. Defendant, Charles Harris, has failed to prove that the trial court's findings were clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust. Therefore, and in accordance with Thomas v. Davis, supra, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
FAULKNER, JONES, ALMON and SHORES, JJ., concur.