Opinion ID: 1402745
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Weil-Defined Boundary

Text: As aforementioned, in reviewing a JNOV, we must review all the evidence presented to the jury and must uphold the trial court's decision if after all the evidence is construed most favorably to the verdict winner, a finding in his favor would not be made by a reasonable [person]. Moore, 147 S.W.3d 13, 16 (Ky.2004) (emphasis added) (internal citation and punctuation omitted). In this regard, the majority concedes that the eastern dividing line of the disputed tract (the green line) between the Winstead heirs' farm and the Ruby farm, as well as the western line, was established sufficiently by the proof. They conclude, however, that proof of the much shorter northern and southern boundary lines was insufficient, and with regard to the various witnesses that testified otherwise, they assert no rationale juror could deem that scant testimony clear and convincing evidence that the northern and southern boundaries have been clearly marked for the entire limitations period. Op. at 82-83 (emphasis added). In support of this statement, they also assert that [w]e have not been referred to any other evidence tending to establish that the northern and southern boundaries were continuously marked for fifteen years, and thus, on this ground too, the trial court's JNOV was proper. Id. However, at trial, with a marker pen, Mr. Stills drew the boundary of the disputed property on an overlay over an enlarged aerial photograph of the area, which was then filed as Exhibit 1, 2. In regards to this line, as he was drawing it, he testified: This road right here is Pennyrile Parkway, this is the early bypass, and here is Blue Valley Road coming up through here. Our property line starts on the farm basically right here [southern end of west line and beginning corner of south line]. Blue Valley Road comes around, and this [as he marks] is on the western boundary, western side of the I.E. Winstead Farm. Blue Valley Road comes right up through here, back up through here, round over through here, there is a big boulder right in here about thirty [30] yards off of Blue Valley Road [the ending corner of the south line, to which he drew a straight line from the beginning corner, the southern end of the western line] [,] and we have claimed this boulder [the end corner of the south line]; pretty well there is a ridge comes all the way down through down here, right down through here, comes up between the two lakes here... starts right inside here, the thirty [30] yards off the curve [indicating the boulders, the end call of the southern line and the beginning call of the eastern line (the green line)]; comes into a ridge right down through here, comes in between these two lakes.... .... I figure our property line [now drawing and discussing the eastern line] [,] what we have always been told by ancestors, the property line comes right up between those two lakes, comes up on the ridge, right in through here. There is an old barbwire fence line right in through here. You just follow that barbwire fence line, comes down right down through here, here's the three-way intersection right through here and up through here [three-way trails intersection]. Barbwire fence line comes down through here and we turn and our property line [continued east line] will cut across and cut back over through here... [there's an] old ridge over through here ... there's a gas line right in here, PVC pipes are here, there's an old railroad bed through here, go on this other side of this railroad bed and there's a, there was an old gum tree that had three big stumps growing out of it, [it was] considered the property line [the northern end of the eastern side]. It's been rotted out, you can see where it's at; if you can't, the tree's not there anymore. The old railroad bed has got concrete right-of-way markers on it and we used a concrete right-of-way marker out there that has got a lot of fence in it [where the gum tree stump was]. The barbwire is all rotting off, but you can see the barbwire comes out three different directions from this way, then that way, coming that way [the northern line back to the north end of the west line]. We were always told that I.E. Winstead property was right here [as he completes the north line], the Norris Slaton property was right there [his northern neighbor], and [the] Walter Ruby property was up through here. Even Norris Slaton supported the northern corner of the eastern line at the gum tree stump by the old concrete right-of-way marker. Interestingly enough, Norris Slaton was the adjoining owner on the north side of the disputed property. According to him, the deed for his farm referenced the gum tree stump as an intersection between the Winstead farm, the Ruby farm, and his property  the same one claimed to by Appellees and testified to by Mr. Stills. Mr. Stills was later asked by counsel, [f]or purposes of your adverse possession claim, what boundary line have you been adversely possessing to or claiming as your own under a mistaken belief? He again replied, [a] cross the boundary line that we've got marked on the map over there [referring to plaintiff's exhibits 1 and 2] that our ancestors have shown what we own. These lines enclose the disputed property on the enlarged aerial photo on all sides (north, west, south, and east). Jerry Flener also testified and was asked, and answered, as follows: Counsel: Earlier, I had Roy draw what he calls a boundary line pointed out by his ancestors, are you familiar with that line? Flener: Yes I am. Counsel: Do you believe that line is in the place that Roy drew? Flener: I firmly believe, after my dad and my granddaddy told me that that is the line that the property actually lays on. I have no other reason not to believe that it didn't. In reference to Appellees' evidence to a well-defined and marked boundary, a portion of which I have recited, this Court said in Neal that: All of the markings upon the trees appear to be very old, and were there before Gilreath entered upon the land, and was the same marked line to which D.B. Neal had claimed for many years. It is apparent that the evidence going to uphold the contention that the land is surrounded by a well-marked and well-defined boundary is sufficient to take the case to the jury, and, there being no evidence to the contrary, the verdict of the jury, if it found that there was a well defined and marked boundary, was not contrary to the evidence and was sufficient to support the verdict. 181 S.W. at 1121. Thus, plainly, a claim to a well-defined and well-marked line does not require a claim to a survey line; albeit, the descriptions contained in Appellants' two quitclaim deeds for tracts I-V, did provide survey descriptions by which the smaller boundary sought by Appellants and lying within the larger disputed tract (to which the Appellees claimed in their complaint and upon which they wanted and received a jury verdict) can be surveyed on the ground. In fact, these survey description tracts were plotted by engineers and introduced as Plaintiffs'/Appellees' exhibits 3 and 6. This also includes tract VI, which is formed by an extension of the northern line of tract IV and the eastern side of tract V. [6] In reviewing a trial court's grant of a JNOV, we must review all the evidence presented to the jury [and can only] uphold the trial court's decision if `after all the evidence is construed most favorably to the verdict winner, a finding in his favor would not be made by a reasonable [person].' First and Farmers Bank of Somerset v. Henderson, 763 S.W.2d 137 (Ky. App.1988). Using this standard, this Court should not reverse the Court of Appeals. Thus, I also dissent to the majority's conclusion that the jury verdict was unsupported by evidence of a well-defined and well-marked boundary to which the Appellees claimed.