Opinion ID: 1756913
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trespass Issue

Text: The appropriate standard of review is whether or not the trial court was clearly erroneous or abused its discretion in finding that Bethlehem's trespass was willful. If it was not, then its holding shall not be disturbed by an appellate court. In determining the nature of the trespass committed by Bethlehem, the trial court had to find whether the trespass was innocent or willful. The law is that every trespass is presumed willful, with the burden upon the trespasser to prove his innocence. Swiss Oil, supra 69 S.W.2d at 1041. The test of willfulness is whether a trespass was perpetrated in a spirit of wrongdoing, with the knowledge that it was wrong, or whether it was done under a bona fide dispute, as where the circumstances were calculated to induce or justify the reasonably prudent man, acting with a proper sense of the rights of others, to go in and to continue along the way. See also, Loeb v. Conley, 160 Ky. 91, 169 S.W. 575, 581 (1914), and Sandlin v. Webb, Ky., 240 S.W.2d 69, 70 (1951). Bethlehem cites two factors which have traditionally been considered, though not conclusive or exclusive of other factors, in mitigation of a finding of willful trespass. The first factor cited by Bethlehem is that it relied upon advice of counsel. The evidence it introduced in support of this is a 1965 document designated Report of Title prepared by Francis Rice. This document indicates that it merely sought to discuss the many ramifications and complications involving the title to the minerals under Tract 42. This document was apparently prepared by Bethlehem's counsel in 1965 shortly after the initiation of this lawsuit in 1964. The first trespass onto Johnson's coal by Bethlehem was in 1968. The record is silent of any showing by Bethlehem that prior to its entry on Johnson's coal in 1968 that it was ever advised by counsel that it had the legal right to do so. The Court of Appeals points out that the document prepared by Bethlehem's attorney in 1965 did not deny the existence of a valid title. The document also did not confirm good title in Bethlehem. The second factor that Bethlehem asserts to establish its innocence is that it had color of title to the subject premises. However, Bethlehem was on notice prior to the 1968 trespass that (i) John Johnson had record title claim to the Childers Patent and (ii) that Johnson was in adverse possession of the surface of Tract 42. With this knowledge, and while litigation on the issue of title was pending, Bethlehem entered the disputed premises without informing either Johnson or the court. The factors to be considered by a court, in reviewing a decision characterizing a trespasser as willful or innocent, are succinctly set out in Swiss Oil, supra . That decision indicates that the primary test to be applied is the intention, or the state of mind, of the trespasser based upon the circumstances surrounding the trespass at the time the trespass occurred. As the case points out, determining intention of a party generally cannot be done by direct evidence. The case directs a court to consider the trespasser's . . . sincerity and his actual intention at the time. The trial court must review the totality of the circumstances surrounding the trespass to determine whether the trespasser . . . was acting in good faith and under an honest conviction that he was right in his assumption. Id. 69 S.W.2d at 1041. In determining whether or not Bethlehem's trespass was willful or innocent, the trial court considered the following factors: a. the actions of Bethlehem throughout the course of litigation and in the field; b. the cavalier attitude of its chief property engineer toward the truth; c. the ample time Bethlehem had to litigate the title to the minerals prior to initiation of its mining activities; and d. the further evidence in the case, and the inferences to be drawn from the evidence showing plaintiffs' willful, knowing conduct and callous and reckless disregard for the property rights of the defendants. The trial court's opinion stated: With this knowledge, and with no attempt to resolve first the title question, [Bethlehem] deliberately chose the course of willful and reckless disregard of defendants' irreparable property rights by the entry and removal of the Number 2 Elkhorn seam of coal on Tract 42. The trial judge rendered findings of fact tending to show the actions of Bethlehem were not bona fide mistakes. There is no evidence showing that the actions of Bethlehem were ever done on the advice of counsel. The document, prepared by its litigation attorney, never advises such action, never confirms title in Bethlehem, nor is there any other evidence in the record showing that this document as prepared by its litigation counsel was relied upon by Bethlehem. The document prepared by its attorney prior to its trespass in 1968, put Bethlehem on notice of the record title claims of John Johnson, and the trial court found that Bethlehem had actual knowledge, through its agents, of the adverse possession of Johnson of Tract 42. The question of the intent of the trespasser is for the trier of fact to determine. In determining whether or not the trespasser acted in good faith, under an honest conviction that he was right, and with a proper sense of the rights of others, this Court must apply the facts established by the trial Court to the applicable law, unless clearly erroneous. The burden of proof was on Bethlehem to establish its trespass as innocent. The trial Court found that Bethlehem had failed to offer persuasive evidence that they were anything but deliberate, willful and reckless in the entering upon and taking of defendant's coal. One cannot calculate with precision what is in another's mind, and the problem becomes more acute where the mind to be probed is that of a corporation, whose intent is, by necessity, the sum of the minds of several natural persons. Therefore, the ultimate question of good faith must be found by inferences drawn from all the facts and evidence. These inferences must be drawn by the trial court. The determination of willfulness is peculiarly a fact question for which the standard of appellate review is well-established. The issue isn't whether or not an appellate court would have decided the case differently from the trial court. The issue is whether or not the findings of the trial court are clearly erroneous or whether the trial court abused its discretion. Cherry v. Cherry, Ky., 634 S.W.2d 423, 425 (1982). The reliance of Bethlehem on the Swiss Oil decision, as well as the decision in Joyce v. Zachary, Ky., 434 S.W.2d 659, 661 (1968), for the proposition that the 1971 temporary injunction was a sufficient adjudication of title to justify its mining is misplaced. In both Swiss Oil and Joyce , this Court was presented with cases where a trespasser had relied upon an opinion of independent counsel that its title was good. This is not the factual situation presented in the case at bar. A decision by a trial court on a temporary injunction is not a judgment. In reviewing the facts found by the trial court on the issue of characterizing the trespass, it is our opinion that its findings were not clearly erroneous. In comparing those facts to the standards set out in Swiss Oil , we hold that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decision of the trial court. The decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed, and the trial court's Judgment that Bethlehem was a willful trespasser is reinstated.