Opinion ID: 1057874
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Adverse Possession and Prescriptive Easement

Text: The primary claim of Cumulus is based upon twenty or more years of exclusive possession of the property on its side of the livestock fence which included the entirety of a service road, estimated at twenty feet in width. While the Defendant admittedly made no prior claim to any portion of the access road, it is his position that the new survey accurately depicted his boundary as crossing over the fence line and into the roadway at certain points and that because there were no changes to the tax map, the Plaintiff could not have paid any assessment on any portion of the area in dispute. The doctrine of adverse possession is often described as a limitation on the recovery of real property; the limitation period may operate not only as a bar to recover adversely possessed property but it may also vest the adverse holder with title. Ralph E. Boyer, Survey of the Law of Property 233, 236 (3d ed.1981). Generally, acquisition by adverse possession for the requisite period of time, whether statutory or under common law, must be (a) actual and exclusive; (b) open, visible, and notorious; (c) continuous and peaceable; and (d) hostile and adverse. Id. The adverse possession of real estate is not only inconsistent with the right of the title holder but may, when all elements of the doctrine are present, create an actual ownership interest. 10 Thompson on Real Property § 87.01, at 73-74 (David A. Thomas ed., 1994). Historically, there are several policy reasons used to justify adverse possession, such as: (1) the stabilization of uncertain boundaries through the passage of time; (2) a respect for the apparent ownership of the adverse possessor who transfers his interest; and (3) assurance of the long-term productivity of the land. Title by either possession or prescription are old subjects in the English Law, according to one treatise, with counterparts in the Roman Law. Boyer, Survey of the Law of Property 764; see Taylor ex dem. Atkyns v. Hord, 1 Burr. 60, 97 Eng. Rep. 190 (K.B.1757); see also Freeman v. Martin Robowash, Inc., 61 Tenn.App. 677, 457 S.W.2d 606, 609-10 (Tenn.Ct.App.1970). As indicated, limitations of real property actions, i.e., the statutory forms of adverse possession, are found in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 28-2-101 through 103. Initially, land granted by the state, for example, requires only a period of seven years' adverse possession under a recorded assurance or color of title, [3] terms which are used interchangeably. Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-2-101 (2000); see, e.g., Slatton v. Tenn. Coal, Iron, & R.R. Co., 109 Tenn. 415, 75 S.W. 926, 927 (Tenn.1902). Another provision, Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-2-105, does not require any proof of a state land grant but does prescribe assurance of title for thirty years and a minimum of seven years of adverse possession. The limitations on actions statutes, described in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 28-2-102 and 103, are defensive only, barring only the remedy. Kittel v. Steger, 121 Tenn. 400, 117 S.W. 500, 503 (Tenn.1909). These rights may be utilized by the adverse holder only in the defense of a suit and not as a means to bar use by the rightful owner. Savely v. Bridges, 57 Tenn.App. 372, 418 S.W.2d 472, 479 (Tenn.Ct.App.1967). Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-2-102 provides a defense when there is assurance of title and seven years possession; this statute serves as protection as to the entire boundary as described. Section 28-2-103, which does not involve color of title, protects an adverse holder after a period of seven years but only as to that portion of the land in his actual possession. Shearer v. Vandergriff, 661 S.W.2d 680, 682 (Tenn. 1983). [4] None of these statutory grounds limiting actions on the recovery of property are at issue in the appeal of this case. Instead, the Plaintiff relies upon adverse possession under common law, an alternative method for the application of the doctrine. In our state, common law adverse possession rests upon the proposition that, where one has remained in uninterrupted and continuous possession of land for 20 years, a grant or deed will be presumed. Ferguson v. Prince, 136 Tenn. 543, 190 S.W. 548, 552 (Tenn.1916); see also Webb v. Harris, 44 Tenn.App. 492, 315 S.W.2d 274, 277 (Tenn.Ct.App.1958). Color (or assurance) of title is not required. Keel v. Sutton, 142 Tenn. 341, 219 S.W. 351, 352-53 (Tenn.1920); Hallmark v. Tidwell, 849 S.W.2d 787, 792-93 (Tenn. Ct.App.1992). In order to establish adverse possession under this theory, or in any statutorily based claim, the possession must have been exclusive, actual, adverse, continuous, open, and notorious for the requisite period of time. Hightower v. Pendergrass, 662 S.W.2d 932, 935 n. 2 (Tenn.1983); cf. Menefee v. Davidson County, 195 Tenn. 547, 260 S.W.2d 283, 285 (Tenn.1953). Adverse possession is, of course, a question of fact. Wilson v. Price, 195 S.W.3d 661, 666 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2005). The burden of proof is on the individual claiming ownership by adverse possession and the quality of the evidence must be clear and convincing. O'Brien v. Waggoner, 20 Tenn.App. 145, 96 S.W.2d 170, 176 (Tenn.Ct.App.1936). The actual owner must either have knowledge of the adverse possession, or the possession must be so open and notorious to imply a presumption of that fact. Kirkman v. Brown, 93 Tenn. 476, 27 S.W. 709, 710 (Tenn.1894). When an adverse possessor holds the land for a period of twenty years, even absent any assurance or color of title, the title vests in that possessor. Cooke v. Smith, 721 S.W.2d 251, 255-56 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1986). Successive possessions, or tacking, may be utilized to establish the requisite period of years if there is no hiatus. Ferguson, 190 S.W. at 552; [5] Catlett v. Whaley, 731 S.W.2d 544, 545-46 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987). What is required for tacking is that the adverse possessor intended to and actually did turn over possession of . . . [the] land. 10 Thompson on Real Property § 87.14, at 178; see also Derryberry v. Ledford, 506 S.W.2d 152, 156 (Tenn.Ct.App.1973). As to this issue, intent may be established by parol evidence or implied from circumstances. Peoples v. Hagaman, 31 Tenn.App. 398, 215 S.W.2d 827, 831 (Tenn.Ct.App.1948). Typically, fencing is an indicia of ownership. Bensdorff v. Uihlein, 132 Tenn. 193, 177 S.W. 481, 482 (Tenn.1915). The possession, use, and dominion may be as absolute and exclusive where there is no dispute as to boundary, and hence the occupant has no actual intention to claim adversely to anyone, as where such an intention exists. Gibson v. Shular, 29 Tenn. App. 166, 194 S.W.2d 865, 867 (Tenn.Ct. App.1946). Prior to Gibson , there was a split of authority as to whether adverse possession by mistake precluded application of the doctrine. In Erck v. Church, 87 Tenn. 575, 11 S.W. 794, 795-96 (Tenn.1889), an adverse possessor, who was mistaken as to the real boundary, built a fence some fifty feet onto the property of a neighbor. Although this Court held in favor of the owner because of a failure to establish seven years of continuous use, this Court recognized that the possession otherwise qualified as adverse. In Williams v. Hewitt, 128 Tenn. 689, 164 S.W. 1198, 1199 (Tenn.1914), this Court followed Erck, ruling that possession, even if accidental or unintentional, could indeed be adverse. In Buchanan v. Nixon, 163 Tenn. 364, 43 S.W.2d 380, 380-81 (Tenn.1931), the title owner's tenant built a fence just inside the actual boundary. Afterward, the owner of the neighboring property constructed a wall at the fence line, encroaching by several inches. Neither of the two owners knew of the encroachment. As a defense, the title holder successfully argued that the neighbor, who had the burden of proof and was ignorant of the actual boundary until a subsequent survey, lacked the requisite intent to hold adversely for the requisite seven years under the statute. Over sixty years ago, however, the Court of Appeals, while recognizing the holding in Buchanan in the context of conflicting authorities, cited the proper rule and expressed preference for a standard quoted in the American Law Reports: [I]n the absence of positive proof or unambiguous circumstances showing that a possession is or is not adverse, the exclusive possession and use of the land are presumed to be adverse, it is not necessary to show an intention to hold and claim the property in spite of the fact that the legal title may be in another. The possession of one who holds property as his own is adverse to all the world, although he never heard of an adverse claim. . . . The fact that the occupant might, if he knew that he was on his neighbor's land, recognize and accede to the latter's title, does not affect the adverse character of his possession, where, because there has never been any question or doubt as to the location of the boundary, he possesses and uses the property as his own, and does not recognize or accede to any superior title. Gibson, 194 S.W.2d at 866-67 (quoting Annotation, Possession in Ignorance of, or Under Mistake as to, Boundary Line as Adverse, 80 A.L.R. 155, 157 (1932) (superceded by Adverse Possession Due to Ignorance or Mistake as to Boundaries, 97 A.L.R. 14 (1935)) (emphasis added)). This view has prevailed in recent cases. Thus, a mistake in the property line does not make possession something other than adverse. Peoples, 215 S.W.2d at 829. A similar observation was made in Liberto v. Steele, 188 Tenn. 529, 221 S.W.2d 701, 703-04 (Tenn.1949). In that case, this Court specifically held that mistakes as to the true boundary did not preclude a finding of adverse possession. Moreover, in Lemm v. Adams, 955 S.W.2d 70, 72 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997), the Court of Appeals confirmed that actual intent to possess adversely is not a prerequisite to a finding of adverse possession. All of these cases are relevant to the issue before us. [6] A doctrine related to adverse possession is that of prescriptive easement, a subject of the Plaintiff's motion to amend. Generally, this easement arises when a use, as distinguished from possession, is adverse rather than permissive, open and notorious, continuous and without interruption, and for the requisite period of prescription. Boyer, Survey of the Law of Property 569-70. The extent of the rights matured by prescription is based upon the extent of the use during the period of prescription. Id. Most authorities describe the doctrine of adverse possession and that of prescriptive easement as blended but with differing histories; the primary distinction is that the adverse possessor occupied the land of another, whereas, in prescription, there is merely adverse use of the land of another. See William B. Stoebuck, The Fiction of Presumed Grant, 15 Kan. L.Rev. 17 (1966); Roger A. Cunningham, William B. Stoebuck, & Dale A. Whitman, The Law of Property § 8.7, at 451 (1984). A prescriptive easement is not ownership and the right acquired is limited to the specific use. Bradley v. McLeod, 984 S.W.2d 929, 934 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998). In order to establish prescriptive easement under the common law of this state, the usage must be adverse, under claim of right, continuous, uninterrupted, open, visible, exclusive, and with the knowledge and acquiescence of the owner of the servient tenement, and must continue for the full prescriptive period. Id. at 935; see Pevear v. Hunt, 924 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996); House v. Close, 48 Tenn.App. 341, 346 S.W.2d 445, 447 (Tenn.Ct.App.1961). The requisite period of time of continuous use and enjoyment for a prescriptive easement is twenty years. Bradley, 984 S.W.2d at 935; Pevear, 924 S.W.2d at 116; Town of Benton v. Peoples Bank of Polk County, 904 S.W.2d 598, 602 (Tenn.Ct.App.1995). Although unnecessary to the resolution of the case at issue, the undisputed facts would appear to be supportive of a claim of easement by prescription.