Wanda Sue Lindsey and Diedri Kay Lindsey v. Amos Aldridge et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 7/20/12 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2100491 Wanda Sue Lindsey and D i e d r i Kay Lindsey v. Amos A l d r i d g e e t a l . Appeal from Fayette C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-9) On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g BRYAN, J u d g e . 1 B e f o r e t h i s a p p e a l was a s s i g n e d t o t h i s j u d g e , t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r r e q u e s t e d and r e c e i v e d e x t e n s i o n s o f t h e d e a d l i n e f o r c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t t o t a l i n g 147 days, and t h e p a r t i e s r e q u e s t e d and r e c e i v e d e x t e n s i o n s o f t h e d e a d l i n e s f o r f i l i n g t h e i r b r i e f s t o t a l i n g 2 1 days. As a r e s u l t o f those 1 2100491 This and c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n o f F e b r u a r y 10, 2012, i s withdrawn, the following i s substituted therefor. Wanda Sue L i n d s e y ("Wanda Sue") a n d D i e d r i Kay Lindsey 2 ( " D i e d r i " ) a p p e a l f r o m a j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f Amos A l d r i d g e , Syble A l d r i d g e , Sharon H o l l i m a n , Stanley C r o w e l l , C a r l White, Mary White, (collectively and L o u e l l a N e l s o n "the defendants") with respect On alleging dispute. We d i s m i s s the appeal t o D i e d r i and a f f i r m t h e judgment. January sisters, i n a land r e f e r r e d t o as sued that 16, 2008, Wanda the defendants they jointly Sue and D i e d r i , i n Fayette owned l a n d that who a r e Circuit was Court, coterminous w i t h l a n d s owned b y t h e d e f e n d a n t s , s t a t i n g a c l a i m s e e k i n g a determination their land claim seeking o f the l o c a t i o n o f a boundary l i n e from t h e lands of the defendants, an i n j u n c t i o n e n j o i n i n g and s t a t i n g a the defendants t r e s p a s s i n g on l a n d Wanda Sue a n d D i e d r i c l a i m e d A l t h o u g h he was n o t m e n t i o n e d C u r t i s Lindsey separating from t o own. i n the complaint, Jessie ( " J e s s i e " ) , a r e l a t i v e o f Wanda Sue a n d D i e d r i , e x t e n s i o n s , t h i s a p p e a l was n o t a s s i g n e d t o t h i s j u d g e u n t i l more t h a n 290 d a y s a f t e r t h e f i l i n g o f t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l . D i e d r i K a y L i n d s e y c h a n g e d h e r l a s t name f r o m R o b e r t s t o L i n d s e y w h i l e t h i s a c t i o n was p e n d i n g i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t . 2 2 2100491 was a l s o a j o i n t owner o f Wanda Sue a n d D i e d r i ' s l a n d when t h e a c t i o n was f i l e d . However, on May 7, 2009, Wanda Sue, D i e d r i , and Jessie ownership executed deeds of a portion conveying of their t o each j o i n t l y owned o f them land. The p a r c e l c o n v e y e d t o Wanda Sue a b u t s t h e n o r t h of a l l t h e p a r c e l s boundary boundary owned b y t h e d e f e n d a n t s a n d a b u t s t h e w e s t o f t h e p a r c e l owned b y t h e A l d r i d g e s , Holliman, C r o w e l l , w h i c h we w i l l r e f e r t o as " p a r c e l 1." D i e d r i ' s abuts the south boundary of parcel "parcel refer with 2," o r t h e p a r c e l t o as " p a r c e l parcel refer to owned b y N e l s o n , w h i c h we 3." J e s s i e ' s and 1, b u t i t does n o t a b u t e i t h e r t h e p a r c e l owned b y t h e W h i t e s , w h i c h we w i l l as sole parcel will i s not coterminous any o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' p a r c e l s . P a r c e l 1 i s b o u n d e d on t h e e a s t b y t h e w e s t right-of-way o f C o u n t y Road 100, a p a v e d r o a d t h a t r u n s g e n e r a l l y n o r t h a n d south. P a r c e l way In 2 i s b o u n d e d on t h e w e s t b y t h e e a s t right-of- o f C o u n t y Road 100 a n d i s b o u n d e d on t h e e a s t b y p a r c e l 3. addition to separating parcels 1 a n d 2, C o u n t y Road 100 b i s e c t s t h e p o r t i o n o f Wanda Sue's p a r c e l t h a t a b u t s t h e n o r t h boundaries of parcels The 1, 2, a n d 3. common b o u n d a r y line separating 3 Wanda Sue's parcel 2100491 from parcels 1, 2, and 3 (i.e., the north boundaries of p a r c e l s 1, 2, a n d 3) i s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e deeds i n Wanda Sue's chain i n the chains of t i t l e parcels 1, separating a n d i n t h e deeds 2, a n d 3 as t h e q u a r t e r - q u a r t e r the northwest quarter of t i t l e section of the northeast of line quarter of S e c t i o n 12 i n F a y e t t e C o u n t y f r o m t h e s o u t h w e s t q u a r t e r o f t h e n o r t h e a s t q u a r t e r o f S e c t i o n 12 ("the q u a r t e r - q u a r t e r section line"). of the However, Wanda Sue c l a i m s h y b r i d form o f adverse p o s s e s s i o n disputes, most o f t h e common section quarter-quarter applicable i n boundary-line line separating her of the quarter- line. boundary The d e f e n d a n t s a l l contend Jessie that the s e c t i o n l i n e i s s t i l l t h e common b o u n d a r y s e p a r a t i n g Wanda Sue's p a r c e l f r o m p a r c e l s On May by v i r t u e 1, 2, a n d 3 i s now s o u t h p a r c e l from p a r c e l s quarter that, 8, 2009, had executed t h e day a f t e r deeds Wanda conveying line 1, 2, a n d 3. Sue, D i e d r i , t o each o f them and sole o w n e r s h i p o f a p o r t i o n o f t h e i r j o i n t l y owned l a n d , t h e t r i a l of t h e a c t i o n b e g a n . The a c t i o n was t r i e d judge sitting evidence parties, without ore tenus. the t r i a l before a j u r y , and t h e t r i a l In addition, judge received a t the request of the judge viewed t h e l a n d . 4 the t r i a l During the t r i a l , 2100491 Wanda Sue and D i e d r i moved, p u r s u a n t 15(b), A l a . R. C i v . P., f o r l e a v e t o amend t h e i r c o m p l a i n t t o add a c l a i m of adverse possession by granted that the prescription, and the trial judge motion. At to Rule Nelson, trial, evidence established that a common a n c e s t o r o f Wanda Sue, Horace Greeley Diedri, Jessie, and t h e d e f e n d a n t s , had owned Wanda Sue's p a r c e l , D i e d r i ' s p a r c e l , J e s s i e ' s p a r c e l , and p a r c e l s 1, 2, and 3. The e v i d e n c e established his land and that, i n 1951, Horace G r e e l e y Nelson c o n v e y e d i t t o h i s c h i l d r e n . The further subdivided evidence also e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t , b e f o r e Horace G r e e l e y Nelson s u b d i v i d e d h i s l a n d and c o n v e y e d i t t o h i s c h i l d r e n , he had f e n c e d i n an a r e a on what i s now parcel 1 t o use as a cow pasture ("the cow pasture"). Wanda Sue and h e r w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r h e r and D i e d r i ' s f a t h e r , Rudolph Lindsey, a c q u i r e d t i t l e to the p a r c e l now owned by Wanda Sue cow pasture for pasturing his However, H o l l i m a n , that her i n 1957, one grandfather p a s t u r i n g cows u n t i l he made e x c l u s i v e use cows u n t i l he died of in 1992. o f t h e owners o f p a r c e l 1, had pasture the also used the cow 1 9 6 0 ' s , and M a r y W h i t e , 5 the testified one of for the 2100491 owners o f p a r c e l 2, t e s t i f i e d t h e cow p a s t u r e f o r p a s t u r i n g that cow p a s t u r e , their land Wanda Sue's f a t h e r ' s u s e o f her family considered and t h a t used l i v e s t o c k u n t i l 1974. M o r e o v e r , Holliman t e s t i f i e d that, despite the h e r f a m i l y had a l s o t h e cow p a s t u r e t o be t h e y h a d n o t t o l d Wanda Sue's f a t h e r t o remove h i s cows f r o m t h e cow p a s t u r e " b e c a u s e e v e r y b o d y just worked upon together." Holliman further testified that, R u d o l p h L i n d s e y ' s d e a t h i n 1992, h i s f a m i l y removed h i s cows from t h e cow continuous pasture and t h a t u s e o f t h e cow contended at t r i a l h i s family pasture h a d n o t made thereafter. and contends b e f o r e this Wanda court Sue that, by v i r t u e of t h e h y b r i d form of adverse p o s s e s s i o n a p p l i c a b l e i n boundary-line disputes, cow t h e cow p a s t u r e parcel now c o n s t i t u t e 1 contend that a portion still separating constitutes lines o f t h e common h e r p a r c e l f r o m p a r c e l 1. The owners Rudolph L i n d s e y d i d not p o s s e s s t h e cow p a s t u r e a n d t h a t t h e q u a r t e r - q u a r t e r line Thus, t o Wanda Sue, t h e s o u t h e r n a n d w e s t e r n f e n c e boundary l i n e s e p a r a t i n g of ownership of the p a s t u r e b y m a k i n g e x c l u s i v e u s e o f i t f o r 10 y e a r s . according of her father acquired the entire Wanda Sue's p a r c e l common f r o m p a r c e l 1. 6 adversely section boundary line 2100491 A gravel from County south r o a d r u n s s o u t h w e s t w a r d a c r o s s t h e cow p a s t u r e Road of parcel driveway 100 t o D i e d r i ' s 1. D i e d r i b e g a n u s i n g approximately c o m p l a i n t commencing t h i s owner o f t h e p a r c e l Sue, parcel, 4 years which i s located the gravel before r o a d as a trial. a c t i o n was f i l e d , When the she was a j o i n t now owned b y Wanda Sue a n d , l i k e Wanda c l a i m e d t o own t h e cow p a s t u r e b y v i r t u e o f h e r f a t h e r ' s a l l e g e d a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n o f i t . However, when she c o n v e y e d her i n t e r e s t i n the parcel abutting the north boundary of p a r c e l 1 t o Wanda Sue on May 7, 2009, D i e d r i c o n v e y e d t o Wanda Sue any r i g h t D i e d r i m i g h t have h a d t o o w n e r s h i p o f t h e cow pasture by adverse possession, and separate claim seeking a determination use the gravel road that runs she d i d n o t p l e a d a t h a t she h a d a r i g h t t o across t h e cow p a s t u r e from C o u n t y Road 100 t o h e r p a r c e l . Wanda Sue c o n t e n d e d line separating at t r i a l t h e common boundary h e r p a r c e l f r o m p a r c e l s 2 a n d 3 h a d b e e n moved from t h e q u a r t e r - q u a r t e r section l o c a t i o n s by v i r t u e o f t h e h y b r i d applicable that i n boundary-line line t o 1 of 3 a l t e r n a t i v e form o f adverse disputes. First, possession she c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e common b o u n d a r y l i n e h a d b e e n moved t o a l i n e we w i l l 7 2100491 r e f e r t o as " t h e p e a - p a t c h l i n e . " Wanda Sue c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e common b o u n d a r y l i n e h a d b e e n moved t o t h e p e a - p a t c h l i n e b y v i r t u e of her family's a l l e g e d l y making e x c l u s i v e use o f t h e p o r t i o n s o f p a r c e l 2 and 3 l o c a t e d n o r t h o f t h e p e a - p a t c h for g r o w i n g p e a s f o r more t h a n 10 y e a r s . introduced evidence indicating that line A l t h o u g h Wanda Sue the pea-patch line was l o c a t e d c l o s e t o t h e W h i t e s ' h o u s e , w h i c h was l o c a t e d n e a r t h e south boundary establishing of parcel the precise 2, she d i d n o t i n t r o d u c e location evidence of the pea-patch line. M o r e o v e r , M a r y W h i t e t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e r f a m i l y h a d a l s o grown peas i n the portion of parcel 2 where Wanda Sue a n d h e r w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t Wanda Sue's f a m i l y h a d made e x c l u s i v e use o f t h e pea p a t c h e s . I n a d d i t i o n , Mary White t e s t i f i e d there were p e r i o d s when m o b i l e homes were located i n that p o r t i o n o f p a r c e l 2 a n d t h a t no one grew p e a s i n t h a t of p a r c e l portion 2 when t h e m o b i l e homes were p r e s e n t . S e c o n d , Wanda Sue c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e common b o u n d a r y could be d e t e r m i n e d projected that by p r o j e c t i n g an i m a g i n a r y imaginary line") across parcels bearing as the south located on p a r c e l fence ("the 2 a n d 3 on t h e same o f t h e cow p a s t u r e , 1 a n d i s on t h e o t h e r s i d e 8 line line which i s of County Road 2100491 100. However, s h e d i d n o t i n t r o d u c e that the p r o j e c t e d imaginary or the demarcation line any e v i d e n c e indicating l i n e c o i n c i d e d w i t h any landmarks o f any use h e r f a m i l y h a d made o f p a r c e l s 2 and 3. T h i r d , Wanda Sue c o n t e n d e d t h a t h e r m o t h e r h a d f e n c e d i n an a r e a on p a r c e l s 2 a n d 3 i n 1993 a n d h a d made e x c l u s i v e u s e of t h a t area as a h o r s e p a s t u r e then and, t h e r e f o r e , pasture that the south ("the horse-pasture boundary l i n e ("the horse pasture") separating line") fence l i n e boundary-line of the horse h a d become t h e common h e r p a r c e l from p a r c e l s v i r t u e of t h e h y b r i d form of adverse p o s s e s s i o n since 2 and 3 by applicable i n disputes. When D i e d r i c o n v e y e d h e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e p a r c e l abutting t h e n o r t h b o u n d a r i e s o f p a r c e l s 2 a n d 3 t o Wanda Sue on May 7, 2009, s h e c o n v e y e d t o Wanda Sue a n y r i g h t D i e d r i had m i g h t have t o o w n e r s h i p o f any p o r t i o n o f p a r c e l s 2 a n d 3 b y a d v e r s e possession. Following the t r i a l and h i s view o f t h e l a n d , j u d g e , on November 12, 2010, e n t e r e d a judgment the t r i a l ruling: " 1 . That the Court f i n d s a l l i s s u e s i n favor of t h e D e f e n d a n t s a n d a g a i n s t [Wanda Sue a n d D i e d r i ] . "2. That the true boundary 9 lines between t h e 2100491 property of Defendants Amos Aldridge, Syble A l d r i d g e , Sharon Faye H o l l i m a n , and S t a n l e y C r o w e l l , and [Wanda S u e ] a r e t h o s e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e p r o p e r t y d e s c r i p t i o n i n [ t h o s e ] d e f e n d a n t s ' deed " 3 . That t h e t r u e boundary l i n e s between t h e p r o p e r t y o f Mary N . W h i t e a n d C a r l D. W h i t e , a n d [Wanda S u e ] a r e t h o s e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e p r o p e r t y d e s c r i p t i o n i n [ t h e W h i t e s ' ] deed " 4 . That t h e t r u e boundary l i n e s between t h e p r o p e r t y o f D e f e n d a n t L o u e l l a N e l s o n , a n d [Wanda Sue] a r e those c o n t a i n e d i n t h e p r o p e r t y d e s c r i p t i o n i n [Nelson's] deed By ruling t h a t t h e t r u e boundary l i n e s s e p a r a t i n g Wanda Sue's p a r c e l f r o m p a r c e l s 1, 2, a n d 3 were t h e b o u n d a r y lines contained i n the l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n s of the defendants' deeds, the common trial judge ruled that the location of the true b o u n d a r y l i n e s e p a r a t i n g Wanda Sue's p a r c e l f r o m p a r c e l s 1, 2, and 3 was t h e q u a r t e r - q u a r t e r s e c t i o n l i n e r a t h e r t h a n any o f t h e l o c a t i o n s Wanda Sue h a d a s s e r t e d . The t r i a l j u d g e d i d n o t explain claim the rationale a determination regarding Wanda Sue's of a boundary-line dispute, a l t h o u g h he d i d e x p l a i n t h e r a t i o n a l e f o r h i s r u l i n g regarding her seeking for his ruling c l a i m of adverse possession by p r e s c r i p t i o n . Wanda Sue a n d D i e d r i t i m e l y f i l e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , w h i c h t h e t r i a l j u d g e d e n i e d on J a n u a r y Wanda Sue a n d D i e d r i t i m e l y a p p e a l e d 10 12, 2 0 1 1 . T h e r e a f t e r , t o t h i s c o u r t . B e c a u s e we 2100491 l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n , we t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l court, 7(6), which t o t h e supreme t r a n s f e r r e d i t b a c k t o us p u r s u a n t t o § 12-2- A l a . Code 1975. Because the t r i a l judge r e c e i v e d evidence ore tenus, our review i s governed by t h e f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s : "'"'[W]hen a trial court hears ore tenus testimony, i t s f i n d i n g s on d i s p u t e d facts are p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t a n d i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h o s e f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s t h e j u d g m e n t i s p a l p a b l y e r r o n e o u s o r m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t . ' " ' Water Works & S a n i t a r y Sewer Bd. v. P a r k s , 977 So. 2d 440, 443 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g F a d a l l a v. F a d a l l a , 929 So. 2d 429, 433 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n P h i l p o t v. S t a t e , 843 So. 2d 122, 125 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ) . '"The p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s , however, i s r e b u t t a b l e and may be overcome where t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence presented t o the t r i a l court t o s u s t a i n i t s j u d g m e n t . " ' Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086 ( A l a . 2005) ( q u o t i n g D e n n i s v. Dobbs, 474 So. 2d 77, 79 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ) . ' A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e o r e t e n u s r u l e does n o t e x t e n d t o c l o a k w i t h a p r e s u m p t i o n o f correctness a t r i a l judge's conclusions of law or the i n c o r r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n o f law t o t h e f a c t s . ' Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d a t 1086." R e t a i l D e v e l o p e r s o f A l a b a m a , LLC v . E a s t Inc., As Gadsden G o l f Club, 985 So. 2d 924, 929 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . a t h r e s h o l d matter, conveyed her i n t e r e s t we n o t e t h a t , b e c a u s e D i e d r i h a d i n the parcel abutting the north b o u n d a r i e s o f p a r c e l s 1, 2, a n d 3 t o Wanda Sue t h e d a y b e f o r e trial and had t h u s conveyed 11 t o Wanda Sue any ownership 2100491 interest virtue i n parcels of adverse 1, 2, a n d 3 D i e d r i possession before might trial, have Diedri had by was n o t a g g r i e v e d by t h e judgment e n t e r e d i n t h i s a c t i o n . A p a r t y t h a t i s n o t a g g r i e v e d by a t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment l a c k s s t a n d i n g t o appeal over from t h a t judgment, and t h i s such an a p p e a l . See Buco court lacks Bldg. jurisdiction Constructors, I n c . v. Mayer E l e c . S u p p l y Co., 960 So. 2d 707, 711-12 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t , b e c a u s e D i e d r i was n o t a g g r i e v e d b y t h e j u d g m e n t i n t h i s a c t i o n , we l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n over the appeal insofar as she p u r p o r t s t o appeal j u d g m e n t , a n d , t h e r e f o r e , we d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l w i t h to that respect Diedri. Wanda Sue f i r s t argues i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e R u l e 15(b) added a claim superseding of adverse that the t r i a l judge e r r e d by amendment o f h e r c o m p l a i n t , possession by which prescription, as her c l a i m seeking a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a boundary- l i n e d i s p u t e , w h i c h she h a d s t a t e d i n h e r o r i g i n a l complaint. A c c o r d i n g t o Wanda Sue, t h i s was e r r o r b e c a u s e , she s a y s , t h e amendment c l e a r l y adverse that indicated t h a t i t was a d d i n g the claim of p o s s e s s i o n by p r e s c r i p t i o n and d i d n o t i n d i c a t e c l a i m was intended t o supersede 12 her claim that seeking a 2100491 determination judge's the of a boundary-line judgment c o n t a i n e d true parcels boundary lines dispute. express separating However, t h e t r i a l r u l i n g s determining that Wanda Sue's p a r c e l from 1, 2, a n d 3 were t h e b o u n d a r y l i n e s d e s c r i b e d defendants' d e e d s . As n o t e d boundary l i n e s above, by r u l i n g the true s e p a r a t i n g Wanda Sue's p a r c e l f r o m p a r c e l s 1, 2, a n d 3 were t h e b o u n d a r y l i n e s d e s c r i b e d deeds, the t r i a l judge common boundary line parcels that i n the ruled that the l o c a t i o n of the true separating 1, 2, a n d 3 was i n the defendants' Wanda Sue's from section the quarter-quarter parcel line r a t h e r t h a n a n y o f t h e l o c a t i o n s Wanda Sue h a d a s s e r t e d . express rulings adjudicate Wanda boundary-line evidence Sue's dispute. the claim trial seeking See R u l e 58(b), judge's intent a determination Ala. Those to of a R. C i v . P. ("A w r i t t e n o r d e r o r a j u d g m e n t w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t i f i t i s s i g n e d or initialed by t h e judge ... a n d i n d i c a t e s an i n t e n t i o n t o a d j u d i c a t e , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e whole r e c o r d , and i f i t i n d i c a t e s the substance intended possession o f t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n . " ) . Had t h e t r i a l to rule regarding Wanda Sue's claim of judge adverse by p r e s c r i p t i o n o n l y , h i s r u l i n g " [ t ] h a t t h e Court f i n d s a l l i s s u e s i n f a v o r o f t h e Defendants and a g a i n s t 13 [Wanda 2100491 Sue and D i e d r i ] " additional would have been r u l i n g s determining sufficient without his the l o c a t i o n of t h e boundary l i n e s s e p a r a t i n g Wanda Sue's p a r c e l f r o m p a r c e l s 1, 2, a n d 3. Although the t r i a l judge's judgment d i d not explain r a t i o n a l e f o r h i s r u l i n g s r e g a r d i n g Wanda Sue's c l a i m a determination of a boundary-line dispute, he the seeking was n o t r e q u i r e d t o e x p l a i n t h e r a t i o n a l e f o r t h o s e r u l i n g s . See R u l e 58(b) and Rule 5 2 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. ("In a l l a c t i o n s upon t h e f a c t s w i t h o u t request and s h a l l a jury t h e c o u r t may upon w r i t t e n when r e q u i r e d by s t a t u t e , s p e c i a l l y and s t a t e s e p a r a t e l y i t s c o n c l u s i o n s (emphasis added)). express r u l i n g s determining lines Consequently, find Wanda Sue's adverse possession amendment as determination no m e r i t the t r i a l judge's t h e l o c a t i o n of the t r u e boundary argument that he t r e a t e d 1, 2, a n d 3 the claim of by p r e s c r i p t i o n added by h e r R u l e 15(b) having superseded of a boundary-line i n that the facts of law thereon s e p a r a t i n g Wanda Sue's p a r c e l f r o m p a r c e l s refutes tried her dispute. claim seeking Therefore, we a find argument. Wanda Sue n e x t a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d b e c a u s e , she says, he determined that 14 she had t o prove adverse 2100491 possession f o r 20 y e a r s i n order to prevail seeking a determination of a boundary-line error, Wanda possession Sue s a y s , because applicable in on h e r c l a i m d i s p u t e . T h i s was the h y b r i d boundary-line form of adverse disputes, which r e q u i r e s a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n f o r o n l y 10 y e a r s , a p p l i e d t o h e r claim seeking a determination of a boundary-line dispute. In K e r l i n v. Tensaw L a n d & T i m b e r Co., 390 So. 2d 616, 618 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) , t h e supreme c o u r t s t a t e d : "Boundary d i s p u t e s a r e s u b j e c t t o a unique s e t of requirements t h a t i s a h y b r i d of t h e elements of adverse p o s s e s s i o n by p r e s c r i p t i o n and s t a t u t o r y a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n . ... I n a b o u n d a r y d i s p u t e , t h e c o t e r m i n o u s l a n d o w n e r s may a l t e r t h e b o u n d a r y l i n e between t h e i r t r a c t s o f l a n d by agreement p l u s p o s s e s s i o n f o r t e n y e a r s , or by adverse p o s s e s s i o n for t e n years." As noted rationale respect above, a l t h o u g h for his ruling to Wanda Sue's the t r i a l i n favor claim of judge e x p l a i n e d t h e of the defendants adverse possession with by p r e s c r i p t i o n , he d i d n o t e x p l a i n t h e r a t i o n a l e f o r h i s r u l i n g w i t h r e s p e c t t o Wanda Sue's c l a i m s e e k i n g a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a b o u n d a r y - l i n e d i s p u t e . The t r i a l that the t r i a l possession adverse judge f o r 20 y e a r s possession properly judge's required judgment i n d i c a t e s proof of adverse i n a d j u d i c a t i n g Wanda Sue's c l a i m o f by p r e s c r i p t i o n ; 15 however, i t does n o t 2100491 indicate that the t r i a l adverse possession claim seeking judge e r r o n e o u s l y f o r 20 y e a r s a determination required proof of i n a d j u d i c a t i n g Wanda Sue's of a boundary-line dispute. "'An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t does n o t presume e r r o r ; t h e a p p e l l a n t has t h e a f f i r m a t i v e duty o f showing e r r o r . P e r k i n s v. P e r k i n s , 465 So. 2d 414 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1984). A p p e l l a t e r e v i e w i s l i m i t e d t o t h e r e c o r d and c a n n o t be a l t e r e d b y s t a t e m e n t s i n b r i e f s . B e c h t e l v. Crown C e n t r a l P e t r o l e u m C o r p . , 451 So. 2d 793 (Ala. 1984). E r r o r a s s e r t e d on a p p e a l must be a f f i r m a t i v e l y demonstrated by t h e r e c o r d . I f the r e c o r d does n o t d i s c l o s e t h e f a c t s upon w h i c h t h e asserted e r r o r i s b a s e d , t h e e r r o r may n o t be c o n s i d e r e d on a p p e a l . L i b e r t y Loan C o r p . o f Gadsden v. W i l l i a m s , 406 So. 2d 988 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 1 ) . ' " D u d l e y v . D u d l e y , 85 So. 3d 1043, 1048 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ( q u o t i n g G r e e r v. G r e e r , 624 So. 2d 1076, 1993)). that Accordingly, the t r i a l possession seeking reverse because judge erroneously f o r 20 y e a r s a determination the t r i a l the record 1077 ( A l a . C i v . App. does required i n adjudicating not e s t a b l i s h proof Wanda of adverse Sue's claim o f a b o u n d a r y - l i n e d i s p u t e , we c a n n o t judge's judgment on the basis of that alleged error. Id. Wanda concluding Sue n e x t that argues that she h a d f a i l e d with respect erred i n applicable i n boundary-line t o the horse pasture 16 judge t o prove the elements of the h y b r i d form o f adverse p o s s e s s i o n disputes the t r i a l b e c a u s e , she s a y s , 2100491 she proved horse that pasture pasture her family erected the fence i n 1993 a n d a d v e r s e l y by u s i n g i t to pasture enclosing the possessed her family's the horse horses f o r the n e x t 15 y e a r s . As n o t e d a b o v e , t h e t r i a l j u d g e d i d n o t e x p l a i n the rationale for h i s rulings seeking made a determination no Because specific the t r i a l of a boundary-line findings judge regarding of f a c t Wanda dispute, regarding made no s p e c i f i c Sue's that findings claim a n d he claim. of fact r e g a r d i n g t h a t c l a i m , we must assume t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e made t h o s e f i n d i n g s t h a t w o u l d be n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t h i s j u d g m e n t with respect t o t h a t c l a i m . See T r a n s a m e r i c a C o m m e r c i a l F i n . C o r p . v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 608 So. 2d 375, 378 ( A l a . 1993) . Under the ore tenus rule, a l l implicit necessary t o support the t r i a l findings judge's judgment w i t h to that claim carry a presumption of correctness be h e l d t o be e r r o n e o u s u n l e s s wrong. I d . Moreover, "'[i]n of fact respect and w i l l n o t they a r e p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y ore tenus proceedings the t r i a l c o u r t i s t h e s o l e judge o f t h e f a c t s and o f t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f witnesses,' light a n d 'we a r e r e q u i r e d t o r e v i e w most Architectura, favorable to Inc. v. M i l l e r , the the evidence i n a prevailing part[ies].'" 769 So. 2d 330, 332 ( A l a . C i v . 17 2100491 App. 2000) Civ. App. 1 9 9 3 ) ) . There horse ( q u o t i n g D r i v e r v. H i c e , 618 So. 2d 129, 131 ( A l a . was some t e s t i m o n y pasture Tidwell, that p a r c e l t o bury pasture testimony, enclosing the fence as e a r l y enclosing the as 1 9 9 3 ; h o w e v e r , an e m p l o y e e o f t h e F a y e t t e C o u n t y Road testified horse was e r e c t e d that i n 2001 o r 2002 he h a d gone a dead horse the horse judge Department, t o Wanda Sue's and t h a t t h e fence e n c l o s i n g t h e d i d not e x i s t the t r i a l Gary then. Thus, b a s e d c o u l d have pasture found on T i d w e l l ' s t h a t the fence was n o t e r e c t e d b e f o r e 2001 o r 2002 a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t Wanda Sue's f a m i l y h a d n o t u s e d t h e horse pasture t o pasture her f a m i l y ' s horses f o r t h e 10-year p e r i o d r e q u i r e d t o prove t h e h y b r i d form o f adverse possession a p p l i c a b l e i n b o u n d a r y - l i n e d i s p u t e s . We must assume t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e made t h a t i m p l i c i t f i n d i n g b e c a u s e i t s u p p o r t s h i s j u d g m e n t r e g a r d i n g Wanda Sue's c l a i m s e e k i n g a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a boundary-line implicit finding credible evidence. dispute, i s erroneous reverse the t r i a l claim seeking judge's determination 18 cannot because See T r a n s a m e r i c a , cannot a a n d we hold that i t i s supported that by s u p r a . A c c o r d i n g l y , we r u l i n g r e g a r d i n g Wanda Sue's of a boundary-line dispute 2100491 insofar as he r u l e d t h a t t h e h o r s e - p a s t u r e l i n e was n o t t h e t r u e b o u n d a r y l i n e s e p a r a t i n g Wanda Sue's p a r c e l f r o m p a r c e l s 2 a n d 3. Wanda Sue n e x t concluding argues that t h a t she h a d f a i l e d the t r i a l judge erred i n t o prove the elements of the h y b r i d form o f adverse p o s s e s s i o n a p p l i c a b l e i n b o u n d a r y - l i n e disputes with respect t o t h e cow p a s t u r e . In Rountree Jackson, 242 A l a . 190, 193-94, 4 So. 2d 743, 746 ( 1 9 4 1 ) , t h e supreme c o u r t s t a t e d : "In e s t a b l i s h i n g a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n as b e t w e e n c o t e r m i n o u s o w n e r s , t h e c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t i s one o f i n t e n t i o n . T h e r e must be an i n t e n t i o n t o c l a i m t h e l a n d up t o t h e b o u n d a r y . Mere p o s s e s s i o n i s n o t a s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s f o r adverse possession. McLester B u i l d i n g Co. v. U p c h u r c h , 180 A l a . 23, 60 So. 173 [ ( 1 9 1 2 ) ] ; B a t e s v. S o u t h e r n R. Co., 222 A l a . 445, 133 So. 39 [ ( 1 9 3 1 ) ] ; S m i t h e t a l . v . Cook, 220 A l a . 338, 124 So. 898 [ ( 1 9 2 9 ) ] ; Hess v. R u d d e r , 117 A l a . 525, 23 So. 136, 67 Am.St.Rep. 182 [(1898)]; B a r b a r e e v. F l o w e r s , 239 A l a . 510, 196 So. 111 [(1940)]. " I n Hess v. R u d d e r , 117 A l a . 525, 528, 23 So. 136 supra, the rule long adhered t o i n t h i s jurisdiction i s stated as follows: 'We have f r e q u e n t l y h a d o c c a s i o n t o c o n s i d e r t h e q u e s t i o n as t o when t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f a c o t e r m i n o u s l a n d o w n e r becomes a d v e r s e t o h i s n e i g h b o r , a n d t o d e t e r m i n e the r u l e a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e f a c t s of p a r t i c u l a r c a s e s . P o s s e s s i o n , t o be a d v e r s e , must be h e l d u n d e r a c l a i m o f r i g h t , a n d t h e r e c a n be no a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n w i t h o u t an i n t e n t i o n t o c l a i m title. Hence i t i s e s s e n t i a l t o t h e p r o p e r d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f 19 v. 2100491 the c h a r a c t e r of the possession to consider the i n t e n t i o n w i t h w h i c h i t was t a k e n and h e l d . I f one o c c u p i e s l a n d up t o a c e r t a i n f e n c e , b e c a u s e he b e l i e v e s t h a t t o be t h e l i n e o f h i s l a n d , b u t n o t h a v i n g any i n t e n t i o n t o c l a i m up t o t h e f e n c e , i f i t s h o u l d be b e y o n d t h e l i n e , t h e i n t e n t t o c l a i m t i t l e does n o t e x i s t c o i n c i d e n t w i t h t h e p o s s e s s i o n , and t h e p o s s e s s i o n up t o t h e f e n c e i s n o t , t h e r e f o r e , a d v e r s e . Where, h o w e v e r , t h e c o t e r m i n o u s owners a g r e e upon a l i n e as t h e d i v i d i n g l i n e , and o c c u p y up t o i t , o r when one o f them b u i l d s a f e n c e as t h e d i v i d i n g l i n e , and o c c u p i e s and c l a i m s t o i t as s u c h , w i t h k n o w l e d g e o f s u c h c l a i m by t h e o t h e r , t h e c l a i m i s p r e s u m p t i v e l y h o s t i l e , and t h e possession adverse.'" In the p r e s e n t case, the u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e that Horace G r e e l e y N e l s o n , Diedri, Jessie, parcel, 3 before 1951 t h a t l a n d , he had for defendants, that, during erected the of creating t h a t , i n 1957, and a boundary conveyed cow was pasture. owned Wanda i t to exclusive, She and parcels t h e p e r i o d he pasture fence. his Wanda children, pasture, t h a t he further testified 20 Sue, Sue's 1, her Sue pasture t h a t her the testified subdivided father t h a t h i s use claimed 2, owned a l l o f r a t h e r than f o r a f t e r H o r a c e G r e e l e y N e l s o n had p a s t u r i n g h i s cows i n t h e cow pasture had f e n c e e n c l o s i n g t h e cow t h e p u r p o s e o f c r e a t i n g a cow purpose land and the o f Wanda D i e d r i ' s p a r c e l , J e s s i e ' s p a r c e l , and and and a common a n c e s t o r established his began of the cow ownership of the father continued 2100491 t o p a s t u r e h i s cows i n t h e cow p a s t u r e u n t i l he d i e d i n 1992. I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t Wanda Sue's f a m i l y removed h e r f a t h e r ' s cows f r o m t h e cow p a s t u r e upon h i s d e a t h i n 1992 a n d t h a t h e r family d i d n o t u s e t h e cow p a s t u r e Contradicting her continuously thereafter. Wanda Sue's t e s t i m o n y , H o l l i m a n t e s t i f i e d grandfather had a l s o pastured cows i n t h e cow that pasture u n t i l t h e 1 9 6 0 ' s , a n d Mary W h i t e t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e r f a m i l y h a d also pastured livestock i n t h e cow Moreover, H o l l i m a n t e s t i f i e d cow that pasture her family until 1974. considered the p a s t u r e t o be t h e i r l a n d w h i l e Wanda Sue's f a t h e r u s e d i t for pasturing father h i s cows a n d t h a t t h e y h a d n o t t o l d Wanda Sue's t o remove h i s cows from t h e cow pasture "because everybody j u s t worked t o g e t h e r . " I t was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t Wanda Sue's f a m i l y , H o l l i m a n ' s f a m i l y , and Mary W h i t e ' s f a m i l y a r e all related. conflicting subdivided The trial evidence judge that, could after have Horace found Greeley allowed pasture the Nelson h i s l a n d a n d c o n v e y e d i t t o h i s c h i l d r e n i n 1951, H o l l i m a n ' s f a m i l y u s e d t h e cow p a s t u r e f o r p a s t u r i n g also from Wanda Sue's livestock family a n d Mary W h i t e ' s i n t h e cow p a s t u r e . Moreover, cows b u t family to the trial j u d g e c o u l d have f o u n d t h a t Wanda Sue's f a t h e r d i d n o t c l a i m 21 2100491 ownership o f t h e cow p a s t u r e as e v i d e n c e d b y H o l l i m a n ' s a n d Mary W h i t e ' s f a m i l i e s ' u s e o f t h e cow p a s t u r e , t h e r e m o v a l o f Wanda father's Sue's cows from t h e cow p a s t u r e Sue's f a t h e r ' s d e a t h , a n d t h e f a i l u r e upon Wanda o f Wanda Sue's f a m i l y t o make c o n t i n u o u s u s e o f t h e cow p a s t u r e t h e r e a f t e r . Although Wanda Sue t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e r f a t h e r h a d made e x c l u s i v e u s e o f t h e cow p a s t u r e f r o m 1957 u n t i l h i s d e a t h i n 1992 a n d t h a t he had c l a i m e d ownership the sole judge witnesses, of the facts j u d g e , as and t h e c r e d i b i l i t y c o u l d p r o p e r l y have lacking credibility. judge o f t h e cow p a s t u r e , t h e t r i a l rejected that of the testimony as See A r c h i t e c t u r e , s u p r a . Thus, t h e t r i a l c o u l d have f o u n d t h a t Wanda Sue's f a t h e r ' s u s e o f t h e cow p a s t u r e was n o t a d v e r s e b e c a u s e he d i d n o t i n t e n d t o c l a i m ownership assume o f i t when he u s e d i t . See R o u n t r e e , that the t r i a l judge made those s u p r a . We must implicit findings b e c a u s e t h e y s u p p o r t h i s j u d g m e n t r e g a r d i n g Wanda Sue's c l a i m seeking a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a b o u n d a r y - l i n e d i s p u t e , a n d we cannot h o l d t h a t those i m p l i c i t they are supported f i n d i n g s are erroneous because by c r e d i b l e evidence. See Transamerica, supra. Wanda Sue n e x t argues that 22 the t r i a l judge erred i n 2100491 ruling that possession she h a d f a i l e d t o prove by p r e s c r i p t i o n w i t h b e c a u s e , she s a y s , the t r i a l her claim respect of adverse t o t h e cow pasture judge based t h a t ruling on h i s e r r o n e o u s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e s o u t h e r n and w e s t e r n fence l i n e s o f t h e cow p a s t u r e d i d not c o n s t i t u t e a boundary-line fence. p e r t i n e n t p o r t i o n of the t r i a l judge's judgment s t a t e s : "On t h e w e s t s i d e o f t h e c o u n t y r o a d ( P a r c e l One) [Wanda Sue a n d D i e d r i ] c l a i m t h a t t h e b o u n d a r y is t h e f e n c e o r f e n c e l i n e as s e t o u t on Mr. Mc[C]raw's p l a t . [Wanda Sue a n d D i e d r i ] offered t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e f e n c e h a d b e e n a c c e p t e d as t h e boundary l i n e and t h a t [Wanda Sue a n d D i e d r i ' s ] p r e d e c e s s o r i n t i t l e , t h e i r f a t h e r , had used the p r o p e r t y as a p a s t u r e t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f d e f e n d a n t s and t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s i n t i t l e . D e f e n d a n t s o f f e r e d t e s t i m o n y c o n t r a d i c t i n g t h e s e c l a i m s b u t i t was undisputed that the property had not been c o n s i s t e n t l y u s e d as a p a s t u r e s i n c e t h e d e a t h o f [Wanda Sue a n d D i e d r i ' s ] f a t h e r . "The common p r e d e c e s s o r i n t i t l e o f a l l p a r t i e s is H o r a c e G r e e l e y N e l s o n who owned a l l o f t h e p r o p e r t y and d i v i d e d i t among h i s f a m i l y i n 1951. T h i s i s c r i t i c a l b e c a u s e t h e f e n c e [Wanda Sue and D i e d r i ] c l a i m as t h e b o u n d a r y l i n e on t h e [ e a s t ] s i d e o f P a r c e l One h a d b e e n i n e x i s t e n c e f o r many y e a r s b e f o r e Mr. N e l s o n f i r s t d i v i d e d t h e p r o p e r t y . The f e n c e was n o t e r e c t e d as a b o u n d a r y b u t as a p a s t u r e f e n c e a n d t h e r e was no i n t e n t t h a t t h e f e n c e serve as a b o u n d a r y when originally erected. M c A l l i s t e r v. J o n e s , 432 So. 2d 489 ( A l a . 1983) . [Wanda Sue and D i e d r i ] f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t t h e p a s t u r e f e n c e was e s t a b l i s h e d as a b o u n d a r y l i n e o r t h a t i t became a b o u n d a r y l i n e a f t e r d i v i s i o n o f t h e property." 23 The 2100491 (Emphasis added.) Wanda Sue a r g u e s that the t r i a l t h a t t h e s o u t h e r n and w e s t e r n had n o t become judge erred i n finding f e n c e l i n e s o f t h e cow p a s t u r e a boundary-line fence after Horace Greeley N e l s o n s u b d i v i d e d h i s l a n d and conveyed i t t o h i s c h i l d r e n i n 1951 b e c a u s e , she s a y s , she i n t r o d u c e d s u b s t a n t i a l t e n d i n g t o prove t h a t t h e s o u t h e r n and w e s t e r n evidence fence l i n e s of t h e cow p a s t u r e h a d i n d e e d become a b o u n d a r y - l i n e f e n c e Horace G r e e l e y Nelson his children after s u b d i v i d e d h i s l a n d and conveyed i t t o i n 1951. However, the t r i a l judge, as t h e s o l e judge o f t h e f a c t s and t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s , c o u l d have found that the testimony tending t o prove that the s o u t h e r n a n d w e s t e r n f e n c e l i n e s o f t h e cow p a s t u r e h a d become a b o u n d a r y - l i n e fence a f t e r Horace G r e e l e y N e l s o n s u b d i v i d e d his l a n d and c o n v e y e d i t t o h i s c h i l d r e n was n o t c r e d i b l e . See Architecture, the evidence supra. Moreover, before as d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , b a s e d him, t h e t r i a l judge c o u l d have on found t h a t , a l t h o u g h Wanda Sue's f a t h e r u s e d t h e cow p a s t u r e , he d i d not claim possess ownership o f i t and, t h e r e f o r e , d i d n o t a d v e r s e l y i t . See R o u n t r e e , supra. That same evidence would s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t Wanda Sue's f a t h e r d i d n o t c o n s i d e r t h e 24 2100491 southern and western fence boundary-line that the fence. southern boundary-line l a n d and lines of the Accordingly, and western the fence cow pasture trial judge's lines had conveyed i t to h i s c h i l d r e n i s supported t h e r e f o r e , we findings on a trial court disputed hears facts j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h o s e are ore tenus presumed findings w i l l n o t be So. 2d a t testimony, correct (Ala. 2007), q u o t i n g So. 2d 429, 843 So. 433 2d 122, Wanda concluding a Sue that (Ala. next she unjust.'"'" 977 So. i n t u r n F a d a l l a v. F a d a l l a , adverse possession 2d 929 State, 2002))). argues had its unless ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n P h i l p o t v. 125 929 its and reversed judgment i s p a l p a b l y e r r o n e o u s or m a n i f e s t l y 443 become by c r e d i b l e ( q u o t i n g Water Works & S a n i t a r y Sewer Bd. v. P a r k s , 440, finding cannot h o l d t h a t t h a t f i n d i n g i s e r r o n e o u s . See R e t a i l D e v e l o p e r s o f A l a b a m a , 985 ("'"'[W]hen a fence a f t e r Horace G r e e l e y Nelson s u b d i v i d e d h i s e v i d e n c e and, the not t o be that failed the to trial prove judge the by p r e s c r i p t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t erred in elements of to the horse p a s t u r e b e c a u s e , she s a y s , she i n t r o d u c e d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g t o p r o v e t h a t she had a d v e r s e l y p o s s e s s e d t h e p o r t i o n s o f p a r c e l s 2 and 3 l o c a t e d n o r t h of the h o r s e - p a s t u r e 25 line by 2100491 proving 20 t h a t h e r f a t h e r had p l a n t e d years erected. before the fence However, peas t h e r e enclosing the evidence f o r more t h a n the horse was pasture i n conflict was regarding w h e t h e r Wanda Sue's f a m i l y h a d made e x c l u s i v e u s e o f t h a t a r e a for growing peas b e f o r e was erected. the fence e n c l o s i n g the horse Wanda Sue a n d h e r w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t Wanda Sue's f a m i l y h a d i n d e e d made e x c l u s i v e use of t h a t g r o w i n g p e a s . However, Mary W h i t e t e s t i f i e d had pasture area f o r that her family a l s o used t h a t a r e a f o r g r o w i n g peas and, t h u s , t h a t Wanda Sue's f a m i l y ' s u s e o f t h a t a r e a was n o t e x c l u s i v e , w h i c h i s an essential element prescription. possession notorious of See a Kerlin, and h o s t i l e p o s s e s s i o n the sole witnesses regarding 390 of judge could that issue 2d at possession 618 found actual, exclusive, not c r e d i b l e . credibility that Mary White's and t h a t See A r c h i t e c t u r e , the t r i a l 26 judge, and t h e c r e d i b i l i t y was c r e d i b l e determination, open, under a c l a i m o f r i g h t f o r a supra. of the testimony the c o n f l i c t i n g t e s t i m o n y o f Wanda Sue a n d h e r w i t n e s s e s r e g a r d i n g was by ("Adverse ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ) . The t r i a l of the facts have adverse So. by p r e s c r i p t i o n r e q u i r e s p e r i o d of twenty years." as claim that Based judge c o u l d on have issue that found 2100491 that Wanda Sue had f a i l e d adversely possessed the horse-pasture years before h e r f a t h e r had l i n e b y p l a n t i n g p e a s t h e r e f o r more t h a n 20 the fence the t r i a l that t h e p o r t i o n s o f p a r c e l s 2 and 3 n o r t h o f erected. Therefore, that t o prove enclosing the horse pasture was we f i n d no m e r i t i n Wanda Sue's argument judge erred i n concluding that she h a d n o t proved t h e elements o f adverse p o s s e s s i o n by p r e s c r i p t i o n w i t h respect t o the horse Wanda concluding Sue n e x t that pasture. argues that she h a d f a i l e d the t r i a l t o prove adverse possession by p r e s c r i p t i o n pasture. However, as evidence t h a t would explained support above, a finding Sue's f a t h e r u s e d t h e cow p a s t u r e , the cow p a s t u r e with judge the elements respect there and, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t the t r i a l concluding that that she h a d f a i l e d adverse possession t o prove by p r e s c r i p t i o n credible Wanda he d i d n o t a d v e r s e l y in argument was he d i d n o t c l a i m t o own Therefore, Sue's of t o t h e cow that, although p o s s e s s i t . See R o u n t r e e , s u p r a . Wanda erred i n with we f i n d no m e r i t court erred in the elements of respect t o t h e cow pasture. Finally, Wanda Sue a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l 27 judge e r r e d i n 2100491 viewing the land without the p a r t i e s ' However, of t h e o n l y l e g a l a u t h o r i t y Wanda Sue c i t e s t h a t argument i s t h e f i r s t Civ. counsel being present. sentence i n support o f R u l e 4 3 ( a ) , A l a . R. P., w h i c h p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ i ] n a l l t r i a l s t h e t e s t i m o n y o f witnesses shall be taken orally rules." otherwise provided i n these taking the testimony Therefore, the f i r s t Wanda Sue's requires an The t r i a l of witnesses sentence argument. that i n open citations argument to general was n o t the land. A l a . R. be App. supported c i t a t i o n s t o cases, s t a t u t e s , or other l e g a l a u t h o r i t y . appellant's unless 4 3 ( a ) does n o t s u p p o r t 28(a)(10), appellant's judge when he v i e w e d of Rule Rule court, P., with "'[A]n p r o p o s i t i o n s of law not s p e c i f i c a l l y a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d by t h e a p p e a l do n o t meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s Cincinnati of Rule I n s . C o s . v. B a r b e r 28, A l a . R. App. P.'" Insulation, I n c . , 946 So. 2d 441, 449 ( A l a . 2006) ( q u o t i n g B a n k A m e r i c a Hous. S e r v s . v . L e e , 833 So. 2d 609, 621 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ) . C o n s e q u e n t l y , c o n s i d e r Wanda Sue's f i n a l For the reasons we d e c l i n e t o argument. d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , we d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l w i t h r e s p e c t t o D i e d r i and a f f i r m t h e judgment. APPLICATION FOR REHEARING GRANTED; 28 OPINION OF FEBRUARY 2100491 10, 2012, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS TO DIEDRI KAY LINDSEY; AFFIRMED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and Pittman, 29 Thomas, and M o o r e , J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.