Court Opinion

ID: 9955768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 14:15:08.662015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:21.069567
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MARCH 22, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals
                             NO. 2023-CA-0689-MR

GARRY L. SETTLE; GK1
PROPERTIES, LLC; AND KELLEE K.
SETTLE                                                              APPELLANTS

                APPEAL FROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT
v.           HONORABLE RODNEY DARREL BURRESS, JUDGE
                       ACTION NO. 17-CI-00688

BETTY W. PORTER                                                         APPELLEE

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE AND CALDWELL, JUDGES.

THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: Garry L. Settle, GK1 Properties, LLC, and Kellee

K. Settle (“Appellants”) appeal from an order of the Bullitt Circuit Court granting

partial summary judgment in favor of Betty W. Porter (“Appellee”). Appellants

argue that the circuit court erred in granting Appellee’s motion for partial summary
judgment because material facts remain for adjudication. After careful review, we

find no error and affirm the order on appeal.

                         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                 Appellants own a commercial building located at 314 S. Buckman

Street in Shepherdsville, Kentucky. It was purchased from Roy Gene Troutman in

2016.1 Appellants’ building shares a common wall with a building situated at 318

S. Buckman Street, which is owned by Appellee.

                 Appellee’s parcel at 318 S. Buckman Street was previously owned

jointly by herself and her husband, Chester Porter, until his death. Before that, it

was owned by B.W.P., Inc., a corporate entity for which Appellee served as

president. Thus, Appellee or her predecessor corporate entity owned the 318 S.

Buckman Street parcel since 1975.

                 At the time of Appellants’ purchase of 314 S. Buckman Street, a

dispute arose as to the ownership of a small strip of land directly behind

Appellants’ parcel. Prior to Appellants’ purchase of 314 S. Buckman Street, as

well as at the time of purchase, the strip of land was enclosed by a wooden fence

and gate. It is undisputed that both prior to and subsequent to Appellants’ purchase

of 314 S. Buckman Street, Appellee had sole control over the gate and fence.

1
    Title to the parcel appears to have been transferred to GK1 Properties the following year.

                                                  -2-
Evidence was adduced that Appellee exclusively controlled the disputed area since

at least 1988, and possibly back to 1975.

                 In 2017, Appellants removed the gate that was previously erected and

controlled by Appellee. In response, Appellee filed the instant action in Bullitt

Circuit Court seeking a declaratory judgment awarding her fee simple title to the

disputed area.2 As a basis for her claim, Appellee argued entitlement to the

disputed area via adverse possession.

                 Discovery followed, resulting in Appellee filing a motion for partial

summary judgment.3 In the motion, Appellee asserted that she proved the elements

of adverse possession by undisputed evidence that she owned and occupied 318 S.

Buckman since 1975, and erected and maintained a fence around the disputed area

in an open and notorious manner in excess of the statutory period. She argued that

no evidence was adduced to the contrary.

                 After considering the record and the arguments of counsel, the circuit

court entered an order on January 23, 2020, granting Appellee’s motion for partial

summary judgment. In support of the order, the circuit court found that Appellee

met each of the elements of adverse possession per Vick v Elliot, 422 S.W.3d 277

2
    The disputed area was that portion of the strip of land running behind 314 S. Buckman Street.
3
 Appellee’s complaint also set out claims for trespass, conversion, property damage, punitive
damages, and injunctive relief. These claims were not addressed in Appellee’s motion for partial
summary judgment.

                                                 -3-
279-80 (Ky. App. 2013). The court found that Appellee’s possession of the

disputed area via a fence and locked gate was actual; open and notorious;

exclusive; and, continuous for the fifteen-year statutory period.4 The “open and

notorious” possession, it found, evinced Appellee’s purpose to hold dominion over

the disputed property with such hostility that the non-possessor, i.e., Appellants,

were placed on notice of the adverse claim. The court went on to note that while

Appellants purportedly had access to the disputed area via a window or door, there

were no steps leading down from the door to the fenced area. This appeal

followed.5

                               STANDARD OF REVIEW

                Summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, stipulations, and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of

law.” Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (“CR”) 56.03. “The record must be

viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary

judgment and all doubts are to be resolved in his favor.” Steelvest, Inc. v.

4
    Kentucky Revised Statutes (“KRS”) 413.010.
5
  This matter was previously appealed in No. 2020-CA-0278-MR. That appeal was dismissed
based on Appellants’ failure to appeal from a final order. The order of partial summary
judgment entered on January 23, 2020, was then made final and appealable by way of an order of
the Bullitt Circuit Court entered on May 8, 2023.

                                             -4-
Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 480 (Ky. 1991). Summary

judgment should be granted only if it appears impossible that the nonmoving party

will be able to produce evidence at trial warranting a judgment in his favor. Id.

“Even though a trial court may believe the party opposing the motion may not

succeed at trial, it should not render a summary judgment if there is any issue of

material fact.” Id. Finally, “[t]he standard of review on appeal of a summary

judgment is whether the trial court correctly found that there were no genuine

issues as to any material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as

a matter of law.” Scifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Ky. App. 1996).

                        ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS

             Appellants argue that the Bullitt Circuit Court erred in granting partial

summary judgment in favor of Appellee. Specifically, they argue that a genuine

issue of material fact exists as to the beginning date of Appellee’s adverse

possession. On one hand, they note that Appellee owned 318 S. Buckman Street

since 1975, and that Appellee claimed that the adverse possession began many

years before Appellants’ purchase of 314 S. Buckman Street. On the other hand,

Appellants argue that no adverse possession existed until May 2017, at which time

the Appellee’s tenant advised Appellants not to come on the property behind their

building, and barred Appellants’ surveyor from coming onto the property to

complete his survey. Appellants also assert that Troutman, the prior owner of 314

                                         -5-
S. Buckman Street, stated that there was an agreement between the prior owners of

the parcels regarding usage of the disputed area. Appellants argue that this creates

a genuine issue of material fact as to when Appellee’s adverse possession of the

dispute area commenced.

                    To quiet title by way of adverse possession, the
             claimant must demonstrate by clear and convincing
             evidence possession of disputed property under a claim
             of right that is hostile to the title owner[’]s interest. The
             possession must be shown to be actual, open and
             notorious, exclusive, and continuous for a period of
             fifteen years. To constitute “open and notorious”
             possession, the possessor must openly evince a purpose
             to hold dominion over the property with such hostility
             that will give the non-possessory owner notice of the
             adverse claim.

Vick, 422 S.W.3d at 279-80 (internal quotation marks, footnote, and citations

omitted).

             The sole question raised by Appellants is whether a genuine issue of

material fact exists as to when Appellee’s adverse possession commenced. After

closely examining the record and the law, we must answer this question in the

negative. The Bullitt Circuit Court found that Appellee owned 318 S. Buckman

Street since 1975; that Troutman’s affidavit dated September 30, 2019, stated that

the disputed area has always been controlled by Appellee’s husband, Chester

Porter, and/or Appellee; that a fence was constructed around the disputed area

many years prior to Appellants’ purchase of 314 S. Buckman Street; that only

                                          -6-
Appellee or Mr. Porter controlled access to this area; and, that no steps exist from

the back of 314 S. Buckman Street to the disputed area. These findings are

supported by the record.

             Appellee’s maintenance and sole control of a fence and locked gate

around the disputed area evinced “a purpose to hold dominion over the property

with such hostility” as to give Appellants and their predecessors in interest notice

of Appellee’s adverse claim. Id. Though Appellants claim that Troutman stated

via affidavit that “some type of agreement” existed between prior owners as to the

use of the disputed area, they do not direct our attention to where such a statement

is found in the record nor how such an agreement would undermine Appellee’s

claim of adverse possession.

                                  CONCLUSION

             Based on the entirety of the record, we find no error in the Bullitt

Circuit Court’s conclusion that Appellee maintained actual, open and notorious,

exclusive, and continuous possession of the disputed area for the statutory period.

The Bullitt Circuit Court correctly found that there were no genuine issues as to

any material fact, and that Appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Scifres, supra. For these reasons, we affirm the partial summary judgment of the

Bullitt Circuit Court.

                                         -7-
           ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS:       BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Mark E. Edison              Hayden A. Sweat
Shepherdsville, Kentucky    Shepherdsville, Kentucky

                           -8-