Opinion ID: 1764244
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adverse Possession and Prescription

Text: Next, we consider whether the trial court correctly concluded that the doctrines of adverse possession and prescription did not apply to an existing and identifiable family cemetery plot. Defendants claim title to the disputed one-acre area by deed, by adverse possession, and by prescription. Plaintiffs urge that we adopt the law of Oklahoma as set forth in Heiligman v. Chambers, 338 P.2d 144 (Okla.1959). It is this Court's opinion that Heiligman already has been adopted in Alabama for determining the nature of the estate in, or the title to, a private cemetery. In Aldridge v. Puckett, 291 Ala. 104 at 106, 278 So.2d 364 at 366 (1973), this Court quoted Heiligman, stating: We believe that Alabama has inferentially followed the rule laid down in Heiligman v. Chambers, 338 P.2d 144 (Okl.), 75 A.L.R.2d 583 (1959), as follows: When a family burial plot is established, it creates an easement against the fee, and while the naked legal title will pass, it passes subject to the easement created. The easement is in favor of the person creating or establishing the burial plot and the right inherent in such person descends to his heirs. The easement and rights created thereunder survive until the plot is abandoned either by the person establishing the plot or his heirs, or by removal of the bodies by the person granted statutory authority. [Citations omitted.] We reaffirm that the above-quoted paragraph from Heiligman is a correct statement of Alabama law. In Aldridge, supra, a one-acre family cemetery had been reserved in a deed dated 1911. A small portion of the acre actually contained gravesites. Defendant Aldridge, whose chain of title nowhere showed any reservation for a cemetery, claimed ownership in the unused portion (approximately two-thirds) of the one-acre cemetery by adverse user. In that case this Court held, based on its construction of Alabama law as expressed in Heiligman, that under the facts presented, an easement in the one-acre tract was reserved and that the easement and rights to the entire one-acre tract created under the 1911 deed survived. In the case now before us, the cemetery was in existence at the time of the testator's death, and set apart in his will. The owner of the freehold may devote a part of his premises to the burial of his family or friends. It is but a just exercise of his dominion over his own property. Kingsbury v. Flowers, 65 Ala. 479 at 485 (1880). We construe the language of the will, that the one acre be set apart and forever dedicated to the purpose of a family graveyard, as creating an easement in the one acre, which could only be extinguished by abandonment either by the person establishing the plot or his heirs, or by removal of the bodies by the person granted statutory authority, and not by adverse possession or prescription. Thus, we affirm the trial court on this issue.