Court Opinion

ID: 9648818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:36:05.149306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:05.651829
License: Public Domain

On Motions, 'for. Rehearing
The appellant and appellee Gribble have each filed their motion for rehearing but we will discuss only one or two assignments of error raised by the appellant.
Appellant contends that this court was in error in holding that an operative presumption of adverse claim arose from the- possession of Haddaway because the evidence shows that he abandoned the property before' he had maintained possession of it for ten years, and therefore any presumption of adverse 'claim was as a matter of law rebutted. He also contends that the court erred in holding the' adverse possession of ■Haddaway could be tacked to the: adverse possession of his divorced wife, for the reason that the evidence did not show that his divorced wife took Haddaway’s adverse claim by gift, devise or inheritance.
The evidence does not show why Hadda-way left the premises in question, whether ■he was forced to leave or that he left voluntarily. The. record is absolutely silent in this respect, except that his wife secured a divorce from him in March 1941, since which time he has not occupied said premises. He had no claim to the property at that time because his title had not ripened under the statute of limitations, but his wife moved into the premises with him in 1933 and she remained in possession and .occupied the same after the divorce was granted. until the house , burned in 1947. The court submitted only one. issue on this phase of the case, as follows: “Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that for any period-of ten consecutive years prior to January 27, 1947, apd subsequent to September 1933, that Mrs. Ruby Light-foot had peaceable and adverse possession o'f Lot 29 -in Block 2 in the Nelson Beall Addition to the City of Waco, McLennan County, Texas, also known as 712 Earle Street in Waco, using and enjoying the ■same?” to which the jury answered “Yes”. Appellant filed no objection to said issue nor did he request any additional issue. She was not a successive occupant or pos-sessor but had remained in the premises during the entire time, occupying, using -and claiming the same for more than thirteen years. ■
■ Wherefore, -appellant’s motion for a -rehearing is in all things overruled.
Appellee Gribble’s motion is also hereby overruled.