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

Heading: The Cases Relied Upon By the Majority

Text: For a contrary opinion, the majority relies upon Noland v. Wise, 259 S.W.2d 46 (Ky.1953), Marsee v. Colson, 307 Ky. 328, 210 S.W.2d 952 (1948), Flinn v. Blakeman, 254 Ky. 416, 71 S.W.2d 961 (1934), Griffith Lumber Company v. Kirk, 228 Ky. 310, 14 S.W.2d 1075 (1929), Fields v. Wells, 224 Ky. 620, 6 S.W.2d 1110 (1928), as well as Craig-Giles Iron Co. v. Wickline, 126 Va. 223, 101 S.E. 225 (1919). Flinn involved an attempt to acquire a 2500-acre tract lying in Knox County by adverse possession. There, the court noted: While there is no satisfactory evidence that Campbell Smith had a well-marked boundary around this entire 2,500 acres, still he could not while living on the Reservation acquire title through such a stretching operation to other property about which he might mark a line. A disseizor to acquire title by adverse possession must have possession of the property he hopes to acquire. He is not in possession of it, if while he is living on another tract, he simply mentally extends his claim over it. He must be there with his flags flying and his possession openly and visibly manifested. 71 S.W.2d at 972. Moreover, in Flinn , the Court acknowledged that [a]dverse possession cannot be sustained by proximity or intention. It can only rest on physical acts, such as will give to the real owner of the land notice that some other person is in possession of it. Id. ( quoting Whitley County Land Co. v. Powers' Heirs, 146 Ky. 801, 144 S.W. 2, 7 (1912)). Thus, seasonal, or sporadic acts, such as the masting of hogs thereon, or the ranging of cattle, or the conducting of a sugar camp, will not constitute such adverse possession within the meaning of the law. Id. ( quoting Courtney et al. v. Ashcraft et al., 31 Ky.L.Rep. 1324, 105 S.W. 106 (1907)). Of course, hogs only mast when the mast (acorns, walnuts, beech nuts, etc.) is on the ground in the woods, i.e., fall. Cattle only range through the woods looking for water or grass that grows in cleared areas. And, one only makes sugar from sugar maples in the spring. Cane for cane sugar grows in cleared fields. In Noland , the court noted that: Neither appellees nor their predecessors in title have ever occupied the land in controversy. It is rough, mountainous land, with no clearings, buildings, or enclosures, although there is some evidence of an old fence along a part of one of the boundary lines. The only act of possession ever exercised by appellees or their vendors was the occasional cutting of timber. 259 S.W.2d at 48. The Court further noted that: [t]his Court has consistently held that the occasional cutting of timber and payment of taxes do not constitute an adverse holding sufficient to acquire title by adverse possession, even though such acts continued sporadically for the prescriptive period. Id. (emphasis added). Marsee held only that [e]ntries upon unenclosed land to cut timber do not constitute an adverse holding, even though the acts continue sporadically for the prescriptive period. 210 S.W.2d at 953. Griffith Lumber Co . noted that: [T]he only acts of possession consisted of cutting some timber, and the extent of it is not definitely described. The land in question was a wooded boundary with no one living upon it. A tract of probably 40 acres had been cleared, but no one had lived there, and the proof was wholly inadequate to establish adverse possession of any particular land. 14 S.W.2d at 1076. Fields held that, [s]o long as their acts denoting adverse possession were confined to the boundaries of the surveys, title of which they owned, their possession was likewise so confined. 6 S.W.2d at 1111. Craig-Giles Iron Co. had nothing to do with the flagging and marking of lines with No Trespassing signs. 101 S.E. at 225.