Opinion ID: 1941185
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did appellant establish an adverse possession claim to the land?

Text: Appellant's evidence to support her adverse possession claim includes: That Eddie was living on the land when they married in 1953; that she and Eddie lived there after their marriage; that Eddie moved an old house and rented it; that Eddie built a new house which he and his wife occupied in 1956; that Eddie made numerous improvements on the land; that Eddie took care of the hurricane damage to the trees and was repaid by the Federal government; that Eddie occasionally rented portions of the land and collected the rent; that Eddie posted the land against trespassers; that Eddie paid the taxes until 1951; that Eddie paid the taxes again after the Corrective Deed in 1975; and that Eddie had a lease between Texaco and Henry canceled. Appellees produced evidence in support of their claim that Eddie only enjoyed permissive use. The chancellor then found permissive use and, therefore, no adverse possession. It is true that under certain circumstances a grantor may adversely possess property against his own grantee, but where the parties are closely related to each other the proof of the adverse possession is not normally as easily established as when the parties are strangers. See Georgia Pacific Corporation v. Blalock, 389 So.2d 498, 501 (Miss. 1980). The permissive use question before us involves a close factual determination. However, the fact remains that ... we have no authority to grant appellant any relief if there be substantial credible evidence in the record undergirding the determinative findings of fact made by the Chancery Court. Johnson v. Black, 469 So.2d 88, 90 (Miss. 1985). Here, the chancellor did have substantial credible evidence to base his findings of permissive use upon and as such this assignment is without merit.