Opinion ID: 1402745
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Evidence of the Marked Lines

Text: Marked lines made on a survey differ from the marking of the disputed boundary in this case. Trees marked in the old surveys occurred only at the end location of each call  the corner tree. Here, Mr. Stills testified: My system was to put your flags within sight of each other where you could stand at one flag and you could see a flag in one direction, you could turn your back and you could see a flag in the other direction. And I say about every third or fourth tree, you put a posted [No Trespassing] sign. Quite pointedly, none of the cases relied upon by the majority involve the use of the disputed property along with its marking around the boundaries with bright engineering tape and No Trespassing signs, as well as the putting off of the property those who came on without Appellees' permission. Clearly, the continuous marking of the lines in this case totally differs from the boundaries marked in the late-1800s through the early-1900s, where one made a slash mark on trees with an axe around a survey or a boundary and then never came back to make sure the marking remained fresh and visible. Here, the brightly colored engineering tape flagging and No Trespassing signs were continually redone as they would deteriorate (or were later torn down), thus maintaining a visible line which continually indicated that Appellees were there claiming, and exercising dominion  indeed, essentially flying their flag  over, the disputed boundary. Moreover, the majority concedes that the disputed property is an area of wild, formerly strip-mined land adjacent to and east of the 239-acre farm [Appellees] acquired through their parents from their grandfather. Op. at 74. Being spoil (strip-mined) land, you could not plow it with a team of mules! Moreover, the topography was uneven as demonstrated by Stills' testimony that the bank going down to the Blue Lake  which lay within the perimeter of the disputed tract  was steep. Numerous hills, rock piles, and ridges were disclosed on the video played at trial. The majority also acknowledges that Roy Stills, a Winstead family member and manager of the family's Winstead farm, testified that for as long as he had been connected with the Winstead family, from well before 1982, he and other family members had regularly used the disputed tract for hunting, fishing, hiking, and riding four-wheelers. He described the construction of deer and turkey blinds, the occasional clearing of undergrowth to facilitate shooting, and the expulsion of uninvited hunters from the property. Again, several other witnesses confirmed that petitioners, a few of them at least and principally Stills and his guests, had regularly used the disputed land in that manner. Op. at 76. In fact, Stills testified that he used the land year-round and that, from time to time, the family even kept a boat on the Blue Lake. Additionally, Stills and his family logged one hundred thirty-four trees off of the disputed property in 1999. This was the same year Appellants (apparently unrelated to Walter Ruby) bought their original interest in the adjoining Ruby farm. Their later quitclaim deeds  purporting to recognize Ruby's title to the disputed property by adverse possession  came two years into the dispute and years after the statutory period had ran. Evidence of the marking and defining of the boundary lines was presented at trial via the testimony of Mr. Stills, Robert Chillcut, David Humpres, Dennis Hart, Roy Eugene Stills, Dunham Box, Norris Slaton (an adjoining owner), and Jerry Flener. The boundary lines were continuously flagged with the bright engineering tape and No Trespassing signs during the adverse possession period. As mentioned, the flags tied around the trees were done with brightly-colored engineering tape. Mr. Stills noted that as the flags ... would deteriorate, they would have to be replaced, but they were on there from 1982 up until ... late-1999 or early-2000. This was about the time of the timbering (and Appellants' initial purchase) and from then on they had been disappearing. [5] Mr. Chillcut testified he saw the flags. Mr. Hart testified, [t]he boundary lines were marked continuously and we also re-flagged them as needed. He also helped put up the No Trespassing signs. As to where the flagging and signs were posted, he testified they were placed [o]n all the boundary lines. We didn't do just one side, we did the whole farm. Roy Eugene Stills testified, [a]nd I had walked it over and helped him flag the whole farm. Mr. Box also testified he helped put up signs and that they were [o]n all the boundary lines. We didn't just do one side, we did the whole farm. In addition, Frank Williams, a licensed surveyor, testified that Mr. Stills' way of marking lines with flags and signs is a general way of signaling boundary lines and not uncommon in the area. In fact, he stated that I mark my lines the same way. When asked if it was a well-defined boundary and could you write a legal description from it, he testified, yes. Thus, in this instance, it is inappropriate to dismiss Appellee's actions as mere recreational use, when, in fact, their use was open  it was posted and flagged, and thus, notorious; it was continuous from 1982  no one testified otherwise; it was exclusive  all persons found upon the property without permission were put off the property. And given the signage and flagging, as well as exclusive claim to, and use of, the disputed property, it was obviously hostile. See Appalachian Regional Healthcare, 824 S.W.2d at 878. Even by the time of the timbering in October of 1999, the required fifteen-year time period had elapsed. In fact, that Appellees actually believed that their claim extended all the way out to the eastern line was supported by the deed for the Winstead farm is an inescapable conclusion. This was not a line established for the purposes of adverse possession; it was a line recognized by the family. Moreover, all the evidence introduced is consistent with the recognition of this same eastern boundary line by Appellees' predecessor in title, Walter Ruby. There is no evidence in the record that Mr. Ruby ever objected to, or insisted upon, a differing line from the 1960s all the way up to the time when Appellants bought their initial interest in the Ruby Farm in October of 1999 (well after the limitations period) and started trying to survey the boundary lines. The only question remaining is the claim to a well-defined boundary.