BACKGROUND AND FACTS Charles T. Scarborough and Mildred T. Rollins were adjoining landowners, sharing one common boundary. Based on her survey of the property, Rollins believed that she owned a portion of a gravel road located to the south of the apartment buildings she owned. On the contrary, Scarborough believed that the gravel road was located totally on his property and that he owned some property north of the gravel road toward Rollins's apartment buildings. In July 2006, Scarborough filed a complaint seeking to quiet and confirm his title to the property. Rollins filed a counterclaim seeking to quiet and confirm her title. The court entered judgment for Rollins. Scarborough appealed.
IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE COURT
Scarborough asserts that the trial court erred in finding that Rollins proved that she owned the property in dispute by adverse possession. Scarborough claims that Rollins failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that her possession of the disputed grassy area down to the northern edge of the gravel road has been hostile, open, notorious, visible, continuing, exclusive, and peaceful. Scarborough also claims that Rollins's paying taxes and mowing the grass north of the gravel road by her and her predecessors in title, as well as [a prior owner's] installation of a gas line are not such adverse actions that gave him sufficient notice that he would know that Rollins was claiming the disputed area and that she was attempting to deny him ownership thereof and exclude him therefrom. Scarborough asserts that both he and Rollins used the disputed land, thus exercising joint use of the land; therefore, a claim of adverse possession is not supported Scarborough also asserts that Rollins paid taxes only on the land situated north of her monumented south boundary line while he paid taxes on all of the land called for in his deed, including the gravel road and the land north of the gravel road up to Rollins's south boundary.
To succeed on a claim of adverse possession, the claimant has the burden to prove each element by clear and convincing evidence. * * * Adverse possession requires the claimant to prove that her possession or occupancy was:
(1) Under claim of ownership;
(2) Actual or hostile;
(3) Open, notorious, and visible;
(4) Continuous and uninterrupted for a period of ten years;
(5) Exclusive; and
(6) Peaceful. [Emphasis added.]
1. Under Claim of Ownership The deed to Rollins's property presented to the chancery court indicated that she owned the property at or near the disputed property. Evidence was provided to show that Rollins and her predecessors-in-title paid the taxes on all of the property north of the gravel road. However, Scarborough only paid taxes on the property that was south of the gravel road.
2. Actual or Hostile
Evidence was provided to the chancery court that for more than thirty-five years, no one other than Rollins and her predecessors-in-title, the Blacks, used this property.
3. Open, Notorious, and Visible [One witness] testified at trial that his family's ownership of that land was open and obvious. He stated that everyone in Starkville, who was around the apartments, knew that the apartment complex owned the yard up to the edge of the gravel road.
4. Continuous and Uninterrupted for a Period of Ten Years Testimony at trial from [three witnesses] all provided that Rollins and her predecessors-intitle used the property for more than thirty-five years.
5. Exclusive
Testimony at trial * * * indicated that no one, until Scarborough, claimed to have used any part of the property in dispute.
6. Peaceful
Rollins testified that until September 2007, she and her predecessors-in-title enjoyed peaceful possession of the property.
We find that Rollins satisfied the elements required for adverse possession. The chancery court properly held that the gravel road which is to the north of Scarborough's property and to the south of Rollins's property was the boundary between the parties and that Rollins was entitled to an award of actual and punitive damages and attorney's fees due to the conversion of her property by Scarborough. DECISION AND REMEDY The Court of Appeals of Mississippi affirmed the lower court's judgment and assessed all costs of the appeal to Scarborough. Rollins had proved title to the land by adverse possession.
WHAT IF THE FA CTS WERE DIFFERENT? Suppose that Rollins had not paid any taxes on the disputed land and that Scarborough had done so. Would the result have been different? Explain. THE E-COMMERCE DIMENSION How might the Internet have facilitated either party's claim to the disputed property?