Opinion ID: 1686639
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did Roland Shows acquire title to the disputed tract of land by adverse possession?

Text: Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-13 (1972) states: Ten years' actual adverse possession by any person claiming to be the owner for that time of any land, uninterruptedly continued for ten years by occupancy, descent, conveyance, or otherwise, in whatever way such occupancy may have commenced or continued, shall vest in every actual occupant or possessor of such land a full and complete title, saving to persons under the disability of minority or unsoundness of mind the right to sue within ten years after the removal of such disability, as provided in section 15-1-7. However, the saving in favor of persons under disability of unsoundness of mind shall never extend longer than 31 years. Furthermore, the recent case of Trotter v. Gaddis & McLaurin Inc., 452 So.2d 453 (Miss. 1984) reflects the Mississippi case law in explaining: There are six essential elements necessary to constitute an effective adverse possession claim. There must be possession which is (1) and under claim of right, (2) actual, (3) open, notorious, and visible, (4) exclusive, (5) continuous and uninterrupted for ten years, and (6) peaceful. Trotter, 452 So.2d at 456. Appellants introduced ten witnesses who testified regarding Roland Shows' total dominion and control over the disputed property for a period of twenty years. In addition, it was stipulated among the parties that eight additional witnesses could have testified concerning Roland Shows' control of the property and that the northern boundary line of his property was known to be the fence. Included in the testimony concerning Roland Shows' control of the property was testimony that Mr. Shows' entire homeplace, consisting of approximately 40 acres and including the disputed four acre tract, was completely enclosed by a fence. There was also testimony that Roland Shows made use of the disputed land in the following ways: He cleared the land, trees and bushes, cut paperwood, kept hogs and cattle, planted assorted vegetables, hunted, fished, gave others permission to hunt and fish, entered into a gravel lease, and stocked the gravel pit pond with catfish. As a supporting argument, the appellants contend that it was the intent of all parties to the various conveyances that Roland Shows have title to the disputed tract south of the boundary line fence. That contention was proved with the testimony of J.B. Shows and Mr. and Mrs. Garner. Appellees add very little to the analysis of whether there was adverse possession. Appellees simply rely on the contention that the execution of the quitclaim deed from Roland Shows to Mr. and Mrs. Garner defeated all adverse possession. Appellees derive this argument from the holding of the chancellor in the trial court. On the topic of adverse possession, the chancellor stated: Failure of the Plaintiffs to establish by clear and convincing evidence an intent on the part of Roland Show [sic] contrary to the express provisions of the quitclaim to the Garners leaves that quitclaim standing according to its terms, and that fact alone resolves the Plaintiffs' claim of adverse possession against them. The record clearly and undisputedly reflects that Roland Shows met all the criteria of § 15-1-13 and all the criteria in the recent Mississippi case law. The language of the chancellor, quoted above, indicates that he did not reach the merits of the appellants' claim of adverse possession. Conversely, this Court, having considered the merits of the claim, holds that no other conclusion could be reached on this record but that Roland Shows obtained title to the disputed four acre tract by adverse possession of the tract for more than the required statutory period.