William Samuel Cousins v. Patricia McNeel and George Houston

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/04/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal 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 , Alabama 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2110039 W i l l i a m Samuel Cousins v. P a t r i c i a McNeel and George Houston Appeal from Autauga C i r c u i t (CV-07-900012) Court MOORE, J u d g e . W i l l i a m Samuel C o u s i n s a p p e a l s the Autauga C i r c u i t Court from a judgment e n t e r e d by ("the t r i a l court") i n favor of P a t r i c i a M c N e e l , d e c l a r i n g t h a t M c N e e l i s t h e owner o f c e r t a i n disputed property, awarding McNeel damages f o r Cousins's 2110039 c u t t i n g o f t i m b e r f r o m t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y , and the boundary t h a t owned by line between the Cousins, whom C o u s i n s had party claim against deed. We and property owned by McNeel i n f a v o r of George Houston, acquired his property, Houston alleging a f f i r m i n p a r t and on Cousins's breach of a and from thirdwarranty reverse i n part. Procedural In February establishing Background 1 2007, M c N e e l s u e d C o u s i n s , s e e k i n g a judgment d e c l a r i n g the boundary l i n e between t h e i r a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t i e s . She a l s o a s s e r t e d c l a i m s , p u r s u a n t 2 and § 9-13-6(2), removal of timber based on t o A l a . Code 1975, Cousins's § 35-14¬ alleged cutting from the d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y , and and common-law c l a i m s o f t r e s p a s s , n e g l i g e n c e , and w a n t o n n e s s ; she s o u g h t t o recover the value of the timber cut and other damages. C o u s i n s d e n i e d M c N e e l ' s a l l e g a t i o n s , a s s e r t i n g t h a t he was r e c o r d owner o f t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , he had acquired title to the disputed property through the that the T h i s i s t h e s e c o n d t i m e C o u s i n s and M c N e e l have b e e n b e f o r e us r e g a r d i n g t h i s p r o p e r t y d i s p u t e . See C o u s i n s v. M c N e e l , 62 So. 3d 1039 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . In Cousins, s u p r a , we r e v e r s e d a summary j u d g m e n t t h a t had b e e n e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f M c N e e l b e c a u s e , we c o n c l u d e d , genuine i s s u e s of m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t e d ; we remanded t h e c a u s e f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. I d . a t 1046. 1 2 2110039 doctrines Cousins of also prescriptive asserted a or statutory third-party adverse claim possession. against George H o u s t o n a l l e g i n g b r e a c h o f t h e w a r r a n t y d e e d by w h i c h H o u s t o n had c o n v e y e d p r o p e r t y t o C o u s i n s i n November 2004. B e g i n n i n g on A p r i l two-day bench t r i a l ; trial. stating, On May 11, ore 2011, in pertinent 27, 2011, the trial t e n u s e v i d e n c e was the t r i a l court conducted a presented at c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s judgment, part: "The P l a i n t i f f , [ M c N e e l ] , h a v i n g p l e d h e r c a u s e o f a c t i o n and p r o v i d e d t e s t i m o n y on t h e following claims, to wit: Trespass by cutting trees, Declaratory Judgment as t o l a n d l i n e , Statutory a c t i o n f o r c u t t i n g o f t r e e s , Common law a c t i o n f o r recovery for cutting trees, Statutory action for c o n v e r t i n g c u t t i m b e r and f o r N e g l i g e n c e / W a n t o n n e s s . Upon h e a r i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y , t h e C o u r t considers t h e s e c l a i m s as w e l l as t h e T h i r d P a r t y C o m p l a i n t on the w a r r a n t y i n the deed, t h i s Court finds as follows: " 1 . T h a t t h e t r u e , l e g a l and actual east boundary line between ... [the p r o p e r t y o f M c N e e l ] and w e s t b o u n d a r y l i n e o f ... [ t h e p r o p e r t y o f C o u s i n s ] i s as follows: " I n t h e SE Q u a r t e r o f S e c t i o n T o w n s h i p 17, Range 13 4, "Commencing at the Southeast c o r n e r o f S e c t i o n 4, T o w n s h i p 17, Range 13, Autauga County, Alabama, thence west a l o n g the South l i n e of s a i d S e c t i o n 4, 3 that 2110039 361.5 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 361.5 f e e t , thence East to the east line of s a i d S e c t i o n 4,thence North along the east l i n e of s a i d S e c t i o n 4 to the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of s a i d S e c t i o n 4. " I n t h e NE Q u a r t e r , S e c t i o n T o w n s h i p 17, Range 13 9, "Commencing i n I n d e p e n d e n c e R o a d 24.32 chains South from the N o r t h w e s t c o r n e r o f s e c t i o n 10, T o w n s h i p 17, Range 13, A u t a u g a County, Alabama; thence North 24.32 c h a i n s , t h e n c e West 7.26 chains t o the p o i n t of b e g i n n i n g , thence South 20 degrees West 22.80 c h a i n s , t h e n c e South 15 d e g r e e s West 7.50 chains to a p o i n t on I n d e p e n d e n c e Road. "2. C o u r t f i n d s t h a t ... [Cousins] c u t t i m b e r on ... [ M c N e e l ' s ] p r o p e r t y a f t e r n o t i c e t h a t t h e r e was a d i s p u t e w i t h h i s a c t i o n o f c u t t i n g , t r e s p a s s e d upon h e r l a n d and wantonly damaged the property of [McNeel] . . . . [ T ] h i s C o u r t f i n d s i n f a v o r o f . . . [ M c N e e l ] and a g a i n s t ... [ C o u s i n s ] on wantonness, double damage f o r s t a t u t o r y damage and f o r t h e l e a s e l o s s o f r e v e n u e and a s s e s s h e r damage a t $41,050.00 p l u s cost of Court. "3. C o u r t f i n d s no i n d i c a t i o n , p r o o f o r i n f e r e n c e t h a t ... Cousins nor ... H o u s t o n e v e r d i d any a c t o f p o s s e s s i o n on the disputed property until Cousins trespassed after 2004. Therefore the 4 2110039 defense apply. of adverse possession does not "4. Defendant Cousins i s d i r e c t e d t o i m m e d i a t e l y and n o t a f t e r 60 d a y s , remove a l l m a r k i n g s on t h e g r o u n d , t r e e s , f e n c i n g , w i r e , p o s t , t a p e and p i n s on o r a l o n g any of the d i s p u t e d area other tha[n] the a c t u a l , t r u e , l e g a l l i n e e s t a b l i s h e d by t h i s Order. "5. C o u r t f i n d s t h a t ... C o u s i n s g o t e x a c t l y what he b a r g a i n e d f o r i n the property located east of the line established herein. Therefore, there i s no[] c o n t r i b u t i o n from Houston t o C o u s i n s . " On June 10, 2011, C o u s i n s moved t h e t r i a l amend, or asserted, vacate i t s judgment. among o t h e r t h i n g s , l a n g u a g e o f t h e May In that his i t was court to a l t e r , motion, u n c l e a r from 11, 2011, j u d g m e n t w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l h a d r u l e d on C o u s i n s ' s b r e a c h - o f - w a r r a n t y - d e e d Houston, t h a t the Cousins legal descriptions the court claim against c o n t a i n e d i n the trial c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t were u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d and u n s u p p o r t e d by any evidence before was not entitled to from the the damages disputed property. that motion. trial for court, the On A u g u s t and cutting that of McNeel timber 19, 2011, t h e t r i a l court denied Cousins t i m e l y f i l e d h i s n o t i c e of appeal. 5 2110039 Evidentiary The e v i d e n c e Background p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l c o u r t e s t a b l i s h e d the following pertinent facts. M c N e e l owns p r o p e r t y i n Autauga C o u n t y , w h i c h h e r n o w - d e c e a s e d h u s b a n d , Joe M c N e e l , J r . , had conveyed to her i n 2000; M c N e e l ' s h u s b a n d had property i n the 1970s f r o m h i s a u n t , property had refer to undisputed inherited that S t e l l a Underwood. The b e e n i n Underwood's f a m i l y f o r many y e a r s . this property t h a t , at the as "the time McNeel of the property." trial, a creek It ran t h e e a s t e r n b o r d e r o f t h e M c N e e l p r o p e r t y and t h a t a f e n c e l o c a t e d t o t h e e a s t o f t h e c r e e k , up a h i l l away f r o m t h e c r e e k . t o t h e e a s t o f and adjacent inherited his property had owned t h a t p r o p e r t y lied was The i n 1978 property. at who f o r many y e a r s . purchased Houston's property c r e e k and t h e f e n c e r e f e r e n c e d a b o v e , w h i c h or Whether p r o p e r t i e s was was Houston f r o m a f a m i l y member at or near the e a s t e r n boundary of the McNeel located near some d i s t a n c e t o the McNeel p r o p e r t y . November 2004, C o u s i n s f o r $500,000. was U n t i l 2004, H o u s t o n owned p r o p e r t y l y i n g had In and We near the the western boundary boundary line of between l o c a t e d at the creek or at the fence 6 property, Cousins's the two i s at the 2110039 c e n t e r of t h i s d i s p u t e . and the fence The p r o p e r t y l y i n g b e t w e e n t h e i s h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d to as "the creek disputed p r o p e r t y " ; a c c o r d i n g to t r i a l testimony, the d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y t o t a l e d approximately The 30 acres. f o l l o w i n g l a n g u a g e was 2 included i n Cousins's purchase agreement: " S e l l e r / s a g r e e t o s e l l and c o n v e y t o Purchaser/s and t h e P u r c h a s e r / s a g r e e t o p u r c h a s e f r o m S e l l e r / s upon the f o l l o w i n g terms and conditions, the f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i b e d r e a l p r o p e r t y , i n i t s AS IS condition: Approximately 250 a c r e s and Residence, T o w n s h i p 17 N o r t h , Range 13 E a s t , S e c t i o n s 3, 4, 9, and 10 i n M u l b e r r y Community o f A u t a u g a C o u n t y . A c t u a l a c r e a g e must be v e r i f i e d by s u r v e y . " A copy o f t h e d e e d by w h i c h H o u s t o n had property was attached obtained t i t l e t o the p u r c h a s e agreement. r e a l - e s t a t e a g e n t , M i k e Vaughn, a r r a n g e d Burke to perform correspondence transmission, sent was the by required Vaughn introduced into A Burke, by which Houston Houston's had property acquired consisted On a p p e a l , C o u s i n s t o t a l s 15 a c r e s . 2 the of property 231 asserts that 7 copy in the of Houston disputed that deed indicated acres, the Ronald facsimile evidence; c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , Vaughn i n d i c a t e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h the Houston's f o r surveyor survey. to to by that had property 2110039 i n d i c a t e d t h a t he b e l i e v e d h i s p r o p e r t y t o t a l e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 250 acres. Vaughn a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o H o u s t o n , the "creek i s the l i n e a l l t h e way up the west boundary t h e r e a r e a l s o a l o t o f c a t t l e c r o s s f e n c e s t h a t do n o t the a c t u a l p r o p e r t y Burke testified follow lines." that, i n p r e p a r i n g the survey, he c o n s u l t e d records i n the county tax a s s e s s o r ' s o f f i c e , had that i n d i c a t e d t h a t H o u s t o n owned a p p r o x i m a t e l y 270 the property. creek s e r v e d as the western boundary of had which acres pertinent section corners. Using those i d e n t i f i e r s , s u r v e y i n d i c a t e d t h a t H o u s t o n ' s p r o p e r t y t o t a l e d 264 the Burke's acres. that " [ t ] h e [Houston] d e e d i s vague and n o t v e r y g o o d t o s t a r t w i t h , w h i c h we r u n i n t o a l o t . A l o t o f t i m e s you have t o t a k e a d e e d and u n d e r s t a n d what i s t h e i n t e n t o f t h e d e e d b e c a u s e b a s i c a l l y t h e y d o n ' t make any s e n s e . I t s a i d s o m e t h i n g a b o u t a f e n c e . And i n t h e p r o c e s s o f t h e s u r v e y I saw t h e f e n c e a t t h e t o p o f t h e h i l l where t h e f i e l d s met t h e woods. I a s k e d a b o u t t h e f e n c e . ... I was t o l d i t was j u s t a f e n c e t o keep t h e c a t t l e f r o m g e t t i n g t o t h e b o t t o m l a n d . ... M i k e Vaughn was t h e o n l y p e r s o n I e v e r t a l k e d to. And so I d i d n ' t l o c a t e t h e f e n c e b e c a u s e t h e y t o l d me i t was j u s t a f e n c e t o keep t h e c a t t l e o u t o f t h a t b o t t o m l a n d t h a t you c a n ' t f a r m anyway. I t ' s j u s t l i k e a r a v i n e . ... And so as soon as t h e crew g o t t h e r e , t h e t a x map i n d i c a t e d t h e f e n c e was t h e l i n e . ... And I d i d c a l l t h e t a x a s s e s s o r ' s 8 and Houston's B u r k e and h i s crew t h e n l o c a t e d t h e c r e e k and Burke t e s t i f i e d ... 2110039 o f f i c e a n d a s k them, t h a t l i n e does r e p r e s e n t t h e c r e e k , and t h e y s a i d i t does. And so I t o l d t h e s u r v e y crew t o s t a r t l o c a t i n g t h e c r e e k b e c a u s e i t was g o i n g t o t a k e a w h i l e t o l o c a t e t h a t c r e e k . So t h a t ' s t h e f i r s t t h i n g we d i d was l o c a t e t h a t c r e e k . The r e s t o f t h e l i n e s were j u s t GLO f o r t y l i n e s . So t h a t ' s why we went t o t h e c r e e k . I d i d n ' t know i f t h e r e was a f e n c e down t h e r e b y t h a t c r e e k a t one t i m e a n d t h a t was t h e f e n c e t h a t e v e r y b o d y was t a l k i n g about. A n d t h e n t h e r e was a -- s o m e t h i n g about t h r e e acres i n t h e corner o f t h e f o r t y which w o u l d be o u t i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h a t f i e l d w h i c h d i d n ' t make any s e n s e . A n d t h a t ' s why I went t o t h e creek." Burke t e s t i f i e d the creek that "nothing was e v e r s a i d t o me e v e r i s maybe n o t t h e l i n e . No one e v e r said Burke a d m i t t e d t h a t , i n s u r v e y i n g Houston's p r o p e r t y , reviewed t h e McNeel deed and never spoke with Burke a d m i t t e d property as s t a t e d description that that." he n e v e r Houston M c N e e l a b o u t t h e b o u n d a r y l i n e b e c a u s e he b e l i e v e d c r e e k was t h e p r o p e r b o u n d a r y that that the line. t h e l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f Houston's i n h i s survey of the property d i d n o t match contained the l e g a l i n Houston's deed. B u r k e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t t h i n k H o u s t o n ' s p r o p e r t y been surveyed or previously. Burke also admitted that had just b e c a u s e he h a d b e e n a s k e d t o s u r v e y a p a r c e l o f p r o p e r t y d i d not indicate party. that the p a r c e l was The c l o s i n g a t t o r n e y , owned b y t h e requesting R e g i n a Edwards, r e l i e d 9 on t h e 2110039 description of the property contained i n Burke's survey, r a t h e r than the d e s c r i p t i o n o f p r o p e r t y c o n t a i n e d i n Houston's deed, when preparing the warranty conveyed h i s p r o p e r t y t o Cousins In May 2005, McNeel's learned t h a t Cousins Cousins been son, Joe McNeel Cousins t o do. r e s o l v e d , McNeel i n s t i t u t e d III fence ("Joe"), and, a c c o r d i n g t o " t o t h e c r e e k " as he When t h e d i s p u t e this could a c t i o n i n February Joe t e s t i f i e d t h a t M c N e e l ' s f a m i l y h a d a l w a y s the Houston t h a t M c N e e l owned t h e d i s p u t e d r e f e r r e d Joe t o Burke, requested which i n November 2004. J o e , B u r k e i n d i c a t e d t h a t he h a d s u r v e y e d had by was c l a i m i n g o w n e r s h i p o f t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y ; Joe i n f o r m e d property. deed as t h e e a s t e r n b o u n d a r y o f t h e i r n o t be 2007. recognized property. Joe's t e s t i m o n y on t h a t p o i n t was s u p p o r t e d b y M c N e e l , who t e s t i f i e d that, beginning i n 1958, she had regularly visited the p r o p e r t y , i n c l u d i n g t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y ; by F l e t c h e r Majors, who h a d m a r k e t e d t i m b e r from t h e McNeel p r o p e r t y , i n c l u d i n g the i n 1986; a n d b y R o b e r t disputed Shackelford, property, J r . , who had leased the McNeel (Bobby) H. property, i n c l u d i n g t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y , s i n c e t h e 1960s, when S t e l l a Underwood owned i t , a n d who h a d c o n t i n u e d t o l e a s e t h e M c N e e l 10 2110039 p r o p e r t y a f t e r the McNeels a c q u i r e d i t . Shackelford's property, Joe lease included a l l portions i n c l u d i n g the disputed testified According of the McNeel property. t h a t , i n 2007, he n o t i c e d t h a t t i m b e r been c u t f r o m an a r e a o f t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y . that, t o McNeel, He testified i n h i s o p i n i o n , t h e c u t h a d been r e c e n t ; he b a s e d h i s o p i n i o n on t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e stumps and t h e sap v i s i b l e those had stumps. He also t e s t i f i e d t h a t , i n 2008, he on noticed t h a t t i m b e r i n a n o t h e r a r e a o f t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y had been cut. According t o J o e , t h e c u t a r e a he o b s e r v e d i n 2008 h a d n o t b e e n c u t i n 2007. B a s e d on J o e ' s t r a i n i n g and as a f o r e s t e r , h i s e x p e r i e n c e experience i n t h e t i m b e r i n d u s t r y , and h i s k n o w l e d g e o f what h a d been p l a n t e d i n t h e a r e a s t h a t h a d b e e n cut, the t h e t r i a l c o u r t a l l o w e d h i m t o t e s t i f y as an e x p e r t as t o value of the timber property. estimated Based on t h a t had been c u t from t h e d i s p u t e d his experience t h a t the value of the timber and knowledge, Joe c u t from the d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y i n 2007 and 2008 t o t a l e d b e t w e e n $10,000 t o $15,000. McNeel dispute, was testified she h a d f e l t charging that, because i t necessary Shackelford, her 11 of the boundary-line t o r e d u c e t h e amount she farming and hunting lessee, 2110039 because she until the that, from $1,050 had asked him boundary-line 2005 u n t i l in rental not t o use i s s u e was the income time as a the disputed property resolved. of the result She trial, of testified she the had lost boundary-line dispute. Thomas Edmunson, J r . , who for 20 y e a r s , was court. cut a timber buyer as an e x p e r t w i t n e s s by t h e accepted had w o r k e d as trial Edmunson t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t C o u s i n s ' s r e q u e s t , he t i m b e r f r o m C o u s i n s ' s p r o p e r t y i n 2005 and a g a i n i n 2007. He i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e p l a n i n 2005 had b e e n t o t h i n t h e so t h a t t h e the had value value of testified t r e e s w o u l d be of the the cut timber, stumpage," t h a t he f r e e t o grow. had d i d not which been he disagreed that referred $12,000 b e l i e v e the He to value timber to as "the $15,000. would He be that h i g h , b u t , b e c a u s e o f t h e l e n g t h o f t i m e t h a t had p a s s e d , c o u l d n o t p l a c e a v a l u e on t h e t r e e s t h a t had b e e n c u t . he 3 Edmunson t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had b e e n t o l d " b o t h t i m e s " n o t to c r o s s t h e c r e e k and t h a t he had t o an i n q u i r y by t h e t r i a l n o t done s o . court during h i s d i r e c t In response examination Edmunson's t e s t i m o n y d i d n o t make c l e a r w h e t h e r t h e " v a l u e " he was r e f e r r i n g t o was r e g a r d i n g t h e t i m b e r c u t i n 2005, t h e t i m b e r c u t i n 2007, o r b o t h . 3 12 2110039 by C o u s i n s ' s c o u n s e l , Edmunson t e s t i f i e d : not the l i n e , what I was On t h a t ' s what we need t o g e t e s t a b l i s h e d . t o l d not t o c r o s s . cross-examination by " [ I ] f the creek i s That's I haven't c r o s s e d the counsel for McNeel, creek." Edmunson testified: "Q: B a s i c a l l y y o u ' r e s a y i n g you went a r o u n d i n t h i s a r e a [ i n d i c a t i n g ] and c u t i n 2005 and t h e n c u t on t h e n o r t h s e c t i o n i n 2007? "A: Uh-huh. "Q: Okay. O t h e r t h a n t h a t , you c a n ' t r e a l l y anything else? "A: I d o n ' t t h i n k i t w o u l d be dollars. "Q: On "A: On any and we Eleven, that. "Q: Okay. L a s t q u e s t i o n . Do A u g u s t 2007 t h a t you c u t ? "A: ... Cousins no twelve recall thousand the south s e c t i o n ? o f i t b e c a u s e we w a s n ' t c l e a r c u t t i n g was j u s t p i c k i n g t h r o u g h i t , you know. twelve hundred d o l l a r s , something like I t wasn't a whole l o t . I feel like testified i t was that, you August or when he think i t was September." became 4 interested in p u r c h a s i n g h i s p r o p e r t y , he f i r s t s p o k e w i t h Vaughn, H o u s t o n ' s Much of Edmunson's testimony was accompanied by r e f e r e n c e s t o " h e r e " o r " t h e r e " w h i l e p o i n t i n g t o a map o r a plat. 4 13 2110039 realtor, and t h e n met w i t h Houston. Cousins testified because Houston had been u n s u r e o f t h e boundary l i n e east side survey. of h i s property, Cousins, however, Cousins also had testified decided to that on t h e get t h a t Houston r e p r e s e n t e d t o h i m and t o two o f C o u s i n s ' s e m p l o y e e s who a had were a l s o p r e s e n t t h a t t h e c r e e k s e r v e d as t h e w e s t e r n b o u n d a r y o f the p r o p e r t y . 5 A c c o r d i n g t o C o u s i n s , b e f o r e he p u r c h a s e d the p r o p e r t y , H o u s t o n h a d t o l d h i m t h a t , a t one t i m e , a f e n c e h a d been l o c a t e d i n t h e c r e e k b u t t h a t , a t some p o i n t , the creek h a d f l o o d e d and t h e f e n c e h a d s u b s e q u e n t l y been moved up t h e hill, where i t s t o o d a t t h a t t i m e . h a d b e e n unaware C o u s i n s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t h a t Houston's deed i n d i c a t e d t h a t Houston owned o n l y 231 a c r e s ; a c c o r d i n g t o C o u s i n s , he h a d b e l i e v e d that Houston p r i c e of had c o n v e y e d 250 acres t o him f o r the stated $500,000. C o u s i n s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he f i r s t l i n e d i s p u t e i n May 2005. l e a r n e d of the boundary- He t e s t i f i e d t h a t , b y t h a t t i m e , he h a d a l r e a d y c a u s e d t i m b e r t o be c u t f r o m t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y T h o s e two e m p l o y e e s t e s t i f i e d a t t h e t r i a l ; t h e y a g r e e d w i t h C o u s i n s t h a t H o u s t o n h a d i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e c r e e k was t h e western boundary of h i s p r o p e r t y . 5 14 2110039 and from Cousins the remaining denied, anyone e l s e t o portion h o w e v e r , t h a t he cut timber of had from the crew" 2007. Cousins had cut timber testified from 350-acre instructed tract. Edmunson disputed property l e a r n i n g of the boundary d i s p u t e . timber his He the t h a t he h a d also denied timber or after that "his disputed property had 6 cut from in the d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y i n F e b r u a r y o r M a r c h 2005 b u t t h a t , i n 2007, he had i n s t r u c t e d Edmunson t o c u t t i m b e r f r o m t h e e a s t s i d e o f his p r o p e r t y , not t h e w e s t s i d e where t h e d i s p u t e d b o u n d a r y l i n e was located. Cousins confused when he testified t e s t i f i e d t h a t Edmunson was t h a t he had cut timber simply from the d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y i n 2007. L i k e Edmunson, C o u s i n s d i s a g r e e d w i t h J o e ' s o p i n i o n as t o the value Cousins of the testified timber cut from the disputed t h a t , i n h i s o p i n i o n , the t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y i n 2005 had timber property. cut been v a l u e d a t a t o t a l from of S i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h h i s purchase of Houston's p r o p e r t y , Cousins had p u r c h a s e d 30 a c r e s l o c a t e d t o t h e n o r t h o f H o u s t o n ' s p r o p e r t y ("the C o n d r a p r o p e r t y " ) and a p p r o x i m a t e l y 56-70 a c r e s l o c a t e d t o t h e e a s t o f H o u s t o n ' s p r o p e r t y ("the Buchanan p r o p e r t y " ) . Those p u r c h a s e s , along with the p u r p o r t e d l y 250-264 a c r e s p u r c h a s e d from Houston, t o t a l e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 350 a c r e s . B u r k e ' s s u r v e y had i n c l u d e d t h e Condra p r o p e r t y but not the Buchanan p r o p e r t y . 6 15 2110039 $1,517.70. 7 As n o t e d e a r l i e r , he d e n i e d t h a t any t i m b e r been c u t f r o m t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y a f t e r Cousins also testified had 2005. t o t h e damages he c l a i m e d t o have s u f f e r e d as a r e s u l t o f H o u s t o n ' s b r e a c h o f t h e w a r r a n t y d e e d . Cousins testified and the warranty d e e d g i v e n t o h i m b y H o u s t o n , he h a d p u r c h a s e d 264 acres that, f o r $500,000. based Thus, on Cousins a p p r o x i m a t e l y $1,893.94 p e r a c r e . he l o s t survey testified, he had paid Cousins t e s t i f i e d that, i f t h e u s e o f t h e 30 a c r e s o f t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y , he w o u l d l o s e t h e i r v a l u e -- $56,818.18 which Burke's was p a r t o f t h e p u r c h a s e ($1,893.94 x 30 a c r e s ) p r i c e he h a d p a i d t o H o u s t o n . Cousins testified t h a t he h a d r e c e i v e d a t o t a l of $8,701.37 i n 2005 f o r t i m b e r c u t f r o m h i s e n t i r e 3 5 0 - a c r e t r a c t , w h i c h was h a l f open and h a l f wooded. C o u s i n s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d c a l c u l a t e d t h e p e r - a c r e p r i c e he h a d r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e 2005 t h i n n i n g o f t h e t i m b e r t o be $50.59. He e x p l a i n e d t h a t he h a d c a l c u l a t e d t h a t p e r - a c r e v a l u e by d i v i d i n g t h e amount he h a d r e c e i v e d i n 2005 as a r e s u l t o f t h e t i m b e r t h i n n i n g ($8,701.37) b y t h e number o f w o o d l a n d a c r e s on h i s p r o p e r t y (350/2 = 175) and m u l t i p l y i n g t h a t amount by t h e number o f a c r e s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y . Thus, he t e s t i f i e d t h a t he c a l c u l a t e d t h e v a l u e o f t h e "stumpage" removed f r o m t h e 3 0 - a c r e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y i n t h e 2005 thinning as $8,701.37/175 x 30 a c r e s = $1,517.70. Our c a l c u l a t i o n i s s l i g h t l y l o w e r : $8,701.37/175 = $49.72 x 30 a c r e s = $1,491.66. 7 16 2110039 Cousins defending also t e s t i f i e d his t i t l e to the t h a t , had he known t h e r e was separating his property 17 North, Range 13 t h a t he had i n c u r r e d $25,000 i n disputed property. He a d i s p u t e as t o t h e b o u n d a r y from the McNeel p r o p e r t y T o w n s h i p 17 N o r t h , Range 13 E a s t , S e c t i o n 9 ( " s e c t i o n 9"), the sections not have c u t t i m b e r had ever had ("section disputed property lies, from the d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y Houston t e s t i f i e d s o l d to Cousins 4 i n Township in the Section line and i n which East, testified t h a t he had dispute with the he would i n 2005. i n h e r i t e d the p r o p e r t y from h i s u n c l e i n the 1970s. a 4") he When a s k e d i f he Underwoods or the McNeels r e g a r d i n g the l o c a t i o n of the boundary l i n e , Houston i n d i c a t e d t h a t he had not, boundary l i n e , Houston property, the t h a t he and not t h a t he had testified taxes had had that, known t h e never r e a l l y during doubled i n one his location of the of the t h a t he had cared. 8 ownership year and H o u s t o n s p e c i f i c a l l y r e c a l l e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t , as a c h i l d , he had " s n e a k e d " o v e r t h e f e n c e t o swim i n t h e p o n d o r l a k e l o c a t e d on t h e a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t y . A c c o r d i n g to the t r i a l t e s t i m o n y , t h a t p o n d o r l a k e had once s t o o d i n t h e g e n e r a l v i c i n i t y o f where t h e c r e e k i s l o c a t e d . T h a t t e s t i m o n y l e n d s s u p p o r t t o M c N e e l ' s and J o e ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e f e n c e had a l w a y s s t o o d i n i t s c u r r e n t l o c a t i o n and h a d a l w a y s s e r v e d as t h e b o u n d a r y l i n e b e t w e e n t h e two p r o p e r t i e s . 8 17 2110039 noticed that, property although totaled indicated that According to 231 he his acres, was he a s s e s s m e n t , so he had acres. testified discovered that his tax not have b e e n the his being Houston, Houston deed tax-assessment taxes t o pay that, in 2002 had that, admitted that he was requests; "there had t h a t I was knew a b o u t t h e or 250 2003, acres. that 250 he had included Houston t e s t i f i e d , n e v e r b e e n any in should had indicated that had c o n v e y e d by to Cousins's Houston he line. to the was fence boundaries not t o l d of that, the further agreement. 18 that, Cousins that instead, location he of the that he required to testified conveyed to Cousins the p r o p e r t y the purchase on property Houston t e s t i f i e d creek but uncertain Houston had Houston t e s t i f i e d t h a t a l l as a c a t t l e f e n c e . western boundary ran boundary given i n those responses, selling." the be had t a x e s on improperly t o t h e b e s t o f h i s r e c o l l e c t i o n , he had b e l i e v e d he notice f e n c i n g on t h e w e s t e r n s i d e o f h i s that i t served western his included. discovery the p r o p e r t y that disputed property H o u s t o n r e v i e w e d t h e r e s p o n s e s he had written on unsuccessfully assessor assessment p r o p e r t y indicated assessed continued tax had 2110039 Analysis Cousins asserts multiple issues on appeal. We first a d d r e s s h i s argument t h a t t h e b o u n d a r y l i n e as e s t a b l i s h e d i n the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment i s u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d by e v i d e n c e and insufficient to t h a t the evidence before allow the b o u n d a r y l i n e where i t d i d . trial trial I n Todd v. Owens, 592 So. unsupported the t r i a l court As a r e s u l t , c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t must be and to court establish Cousins argues, the the reversed. 2d 534, 535 ( A l a . 1991), supreme c o u r t s t a t e d t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w a p p l i c a b l e t o issue: "'"[A] judgment e s t a b l i s h i n g a boundary line between coterminous landowners on e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d ore tenus i s presumed t o be c o r r e c t and n e e d o n l y be s u p p o r t e d by c r e d i b l e evidence. I f so s u p p o r t e d , the trial court's conclusions will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly erroneous or m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t . " Tidwell v. S t r i c k l e r , 457 So. 2d 365, 367 (Ala. 1984) (citations omitted).' " G a r r i n g e r v. W i n g a r d , 585 So. 2d 898, 899 (Ala. 1 9 9 1 ) . 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 i s e s p e c i a l l y s t r o n g i n boundary l i n e d i s p u t e cases because i t i s d i f f i c u l t f o r the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t to review the evidence i n such cases. B e a r d e n v. E l l i s o n , 560 So. 2d 1042 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) . " 19 was our this 2110039 Cousins a s s e r t s t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the l o c a t i o n of the boundary l i n e between the p r o p e r t i e s i n s o f a r as they taken is l i e i n s e c t i o n 4 " i s f r o m an unknown s o u r c e , f r o m any not is o f t h e deeds i n e i t h e r p a r t y ' s c h a i n o f supported by any evidence before the court, not title, and does not p r o v i d e a proper or adequate s o l u t i o n t o the boundary l i n e dispute at issue." McNeel disagrees, p r o p e r t y d e s c r i p t i o n u s e d by t h e t r i a l boundary l i n e i n s e c t i o n 4 was that the c o u r t to e s t a b l i s h the taken c h a i n o f t i t l e , t h a t t h a t d e e d was asserting f r o m a 1979 deed i n her court, and before the t r i a l t h a t t h e o n l y d i s p u t e as t o t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e b o u n d a r y that required regarding the McNeel any i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by "three further acres asserts applied long-standing acres the i n the property i n the southeast that corner Southeast the trial o f s e c t i o n 4, d e s c r i p t i o n contained court in 144, the 58 So. was Corner." court properly three as r e f e r e n c e d judgment. 419, 421 in See (1912) conveyance of a d e f i n i t e q u a n t i t y of l a n d i n or o f f of s p e c i f i e d corner of a designated rule trial caselaw to c r e a t e a square of the D a n i e l s v. W i l l i a m s , 177 A l a . 140, ("A the line of c o n s t r u c t i o n , the grant 20 a t r a c t i s under a w e l l - s e t t l e d of a corner quadrangle, of 2110039 e q u a l s i d e s , e x t e n d i n g t o t h a t c o r n e r . " ) ; G r e e n v. J o r d a n , 83 A l a . 220, 224, 3 So. 513, 514 (1887) ("The p h r a s e , ' e x c e p t two a c r e s i n t h e s o u t h - e a s t c o r n e r , ' must be c o n s t r u e d t o mean two a c r e s , i n such c o r n e r , l y i n g i n a square, equal sides."); (1883) a and W i l k i n s o n v. Roper, 74 A l a . 140, 148 ( s t a t i n g t h a t , when a p r o p e r t y d e s c r i p t i o n specified described acreage property o f f of a "side, must be drawn edge called for or corner," the i n a quadrangle s i d e s f r o m t h e s i d e , edge, o r c o r n e r ) . Elliott, and bounded by f o u r of equal See a l s o H e n d e r s o n v . 274 A l a . 339, 3 4 1 , 342, 148 So. 2d 622, 623, 624 (1963) ( " C o m p l a i n a n t ' s d e e d c a l l s f o r a q u a d r a n g l e containing one a c r e o f l a n d o f e q u a l s i d e s i n t h e s o u t h e a s t c o r n e r o f t h e SW 1/4 shown, o f t h e NW t h e deed 1/4 of o f t h e named the complainant section." on i t s face c o n s t r u e d t o c o n v e y one a c r e , i n t h e s o u t h e a s t forty, lying i n a square, "As we have must be corner of the bounded by f o u r e q u a l sides."). B e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e l i e d on e v i d e n c e b e f o r e i t a n d l o n g ¬ s t a n d i n g p r i n c i p l e s o f p r o p e r t y law t o e s t a b l i s h the boundary line i n section demonstrate 4, we reversible p o r t i o n of the boundary conclude error t h a t Cousins has f a i l e d as t o t h e d e s c r i p t i o n line. 21 to of that 2110039 Cousins also asserts of the l o c a t i o n of i n s o f a r as the that the trial boundary l i n e they l i e i n s e c t i o n court's description between the properties 9 " a p p e a r s t o have b e e n t a k e n f r o m an o l d p r i o r deed i n C o u s i n s ' s c h a i n of t i t l e is consistent from not survey, or the with Cousins's deed Autauga He twenty years." County complains because the also Tax Assessment ... Houston, for on fence i n question. We f i n d no his the trial last court's b o u n d a r y - l i n e d e s c r i p t i o n g i v e s no i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e of the [and] location reversible error based those arguments. In d r a f t i n g the b o u n d a r y - l i n e d e s c r i p t i o n f o r s e c t i o n the trial court which Houston relied acquired b e f o r e the t r i a l the trier of court. on language contained his We property The section was court, as f a c t , c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t B u r k e ' s errors by deed survey, b a s e d on B u r k e ' s s u r v e y , the tax a s s e s s o r ' s r e c o r d s r e l a t i n g to Houston's contained deed that a l s o note t h a t the t r i a l H o u s t o n ' s d e e d t o C o u s i n s , w h i c h was and i n 1978; i n the 9, property in their legal descriptions. trial court's 9 also relies description on r o a d , i . e . , l a n d m a r k s , and section of the corners boundary and an line identified p r o v i d e s s t a t e d measurements 22 in from 2110039 those landmarks t o d e f i n e the boundary l i n e . Therefore, we r e j e c t C o u s i n s ' s c l a i m t h a t t h e b o u n d a r y l i n e i n s e c t i o n 9, as e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e t r i a l 1975, c o u r t , i s d e f i c i e n t u n d e r A l a . Code § 35-3-3. Additionally, although the better practice might have been t o i d e n t i f y the l o c a t i o n o f t h e f e n c e i n d e s c r i b i n g the b o u n d a r y l i n e b e t w e e n t h e two p a r c e l s o f p r o p e r t y , C o u s i n s c i t e d no a u t h o r i t y , court and we t o have done s o . know o f none, r e q u i r i n g t h e We further note has trial that a t r i a l court may, but i s not r e q u i r e d t o , appoint a s u r v e y o r , pursuant Ala. Code 1975, the location § 35-3-20, t o a s s i s t t h e c o u r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g of a boundary Dixon F a m i l y P ' s h i p , LLLP, line. appoint result, we reversible a conclude error boundary l i n e We surveyor i n section next address held liable that e.g., 450 Ex parte M.C. (Ala. Civ. App. c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n as t o w h e t h e r in a i n the See, 993 So. 2d 447, 2006) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h e t r i a l to to boundary-line Cousins trial has dispute). failed to As a identify court's establishment of the 9. Cousins's argument t h a t he s h o u l d n o t f o r damages r e s u l t i n g from the d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y . from h i s c u t t i n g of timber I n a d d r e s s i n g t h i s i s s u e , we 23 be note 2110039 t h a t , on a p p e a l , findings that McNeel or C o u s i n s has the disputed none o f ownership claimed that to not challenged property Cousins's the disputed the t r i a l rightfully predecessors property t h a t Cousins's c l a i m of adverse p o s s e s s i o n of court's belongs in title and, to had therefore, f a i l e d as a m a t t e r law. C o u s i n s , h o w e v e r , has challenged the t r i a l court's o f damages f o r h i s c u t t i n g o f t h e t i m b e r b e c a u s e , he he had the a s i n c e r e b e l i e f t h a t any evidence d i d not (Ala. v. Container c u t was establish a reckless ownership of the t r e e s . Mizell t i m b e r he asserts, h i s own disregard of America, supreme c o u r t 486 So. 2d and for I n s u p p o r t o f h i s a r g u m e n t , he Corp. 1986), i n w h i c h our award the cites 398, 399 stated: "The e x i s t e n c e o f a r e a s o n a b l e b e l i e f t h a t t h e c u t t i n g i s a u t h o r i z e d o r t h a t t h e t r e e s a r e on one's own p r o p e r t y c o n s t i t u t e s a d e f e n s e t o [an a c t i o n f o r s t a t u t o r y damages, p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 35¬ 14-1 e t s e q . ] . V i c k v. T i s d a l e , 56 A l a . App. 565, 568, 324 So. 2d 279, 282 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Moreover, such a belief, even if unreasonable, will preclude l i a b i l i t y under these s t a t u t e s u n l e s s the b e l i e f i s 'so patently unreasonable as to constitute a r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d f o r the ownership of the t r e e s . ' Id." Cousins d i d not trial court. s p e c i f i c a l l y present this theory D u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h e t r i a l , he s i m p l y 24 to the argued 2110039 t h a t t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y had b e e n c o n v e y e d t o him by H o u s t o n and that after he had not cut learning that disputed McNeel property. "reasonable timber was Cousins, belief" from defense court has the disputed property a s s e r t i n g ownership however, to the f i l i n g of h i s postjudgment motion. trial the discretion did trial the present not of his court until the I t i s well settled that to consider a new legal argument i n a p o s t - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , b u t i s not r e q u i r e d t o so," and abuses that Blalock, trial that 525 will reverse discretion." So. c o u r t was Cousins's "[w]e Green 2d 1366, 1369, Tree 1370 i f the Acceptance, b e l a t e d d e f e n s e and trial r e j e c t e d i t , we t h a t he had disputed property caused court 2007, after Inc. v. the considered consider to caused timber t o be learning cut from he was The cut that from the disputed McNeel was claiming 25 court, Cousins property to the notified trial with evidence i n d i c a t i n g that be Cousins's f i n d no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . o n l y o n c e , i n 2005, b e f o r e presented timber court Thus, ( A l a . 1988). of McNeel's c l a i m t o the d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y . had do defense. Even a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e h o w e v e r , was trial w i t h i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n r e f u s i n g to belated Cousins claimed only "a own in the 2110039 disputed property, and again had been i n i t i a t e d . was e n t i t l e d to r e s o l v e the d i s p u t e this case, We The i n 2008, a f t e r trial as the litigation trier of i n the evidence, fact, and, in causes of i t d i d so i n f a v o r o f M c N e e l . also note that McNeel a c t i o n under which the t r i a l against Cousins. statutory which court, this asserted c o u r t c o u l d have i m p o s e d damages McNeel a s s e r t e d , damages, pursuant multiple to among o t h e r s , a c l a i m f o r Ala. Code 1975, § 9-13-62, provides: "Any p e r s o n o r e n t i t y who damages, d e s t r o y s , c u t s , o r removes t i m b e r o r o t h e r f o r e s t p r o d u c t s n o t owned by t h a t p e r s o n o r w i t h o u t t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e l e g a l owner, ... r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h e a c t was done k n o w i n g l y o r i n t e n t i o n a l l y , s h a l l be jointly and s e v e r a l l y l i a b l e t o t h e owner f o r d o u b l e t h e f a i r market v a l u e of the timber or other f o r e s t products t h a t were damaged, d e s t r o y e d , cut, or removed." The trial court's judgment i n d i c a t e t h a t i t was pursuant to specifically § language sufficient to a w a r d i n g M c N e e l d o u b l e s t a t u t o r y damages, 9-13-62. found included that A d d i t i o n a l l y , the Cousins had acted trial court wantonly, which, when u s e d i n an a c t i o n f o r t r e s p a s s , "means s i m p l y an i n v a s i o n of the p l a i n t i f f s ' p r e m i s e s w i t h knowledge of the v i o l a t i o n plaintiffs' rights." C a l v e r t & Marsh Coal 26 Co. v. Pass, of 393 2110039 So. 2d 955, 956 2100157, Nov. ( A l a . 1980). 4, 2011] ( p l u r a l i t y opinion) See So. a l s o M a r t i n v. G l a s s , 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. [Ms. 2011) ( a f f i r m i n g a w a r d o f n o m i n a l and p u n i t i v e damages a w a r d e d t o l a n d o w n e r i n t r e s p a s s a c t i o n a g a i n s t l o g g e r who cut several basis that s u p p o r t e d t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t l o g g e r had evidence acted wantonly; is had Rosenfeld, logger on the twice to leave but logger her returned cutting). appeal, Cousins excessive asked trees to cease c u t t i n g of t i m b e r , continued On landowner's landowner p r o p e r t y and and of until LLC, 936 he So. d i d n o t a s s e r t t h a t t h e damages a w a r d filed his reply brief. 2d 488 In S t e e l e v. ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , t h e supreme c o u r t stated: "'The l a w o f A l a b a m a p r o v i d e s t h a t where no l e g a l a u t h o r i t y i s c i t e d o r a r g u e d , t h e e f f e c t i s t h e same as i f no a r g u m e n t had b e e n made.' B e n n e t t v. B e n n e t t , 506 So. 2d 1021, 1023 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . ' [ A ] n argument may n o t be r a i s e d , n o r may an a r g u m e n t be s u p p o r t e d by c i t a t i o n s t o a u t h o r i t y , f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e i n an a p p e l l a n t ' s r e p l y b r i e f . ' Improved Benevolent & P r o t e c t i v e Order o f E l k s v. Moss, 855 So. 2d 1107, 1111 (Ala. Civ. App. 2 0 0 3 ) , a b r o g a t e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e F u l l C i r c l e D i s t r i b u t i o n , L.L.C., 883 So. 2d 638 (Ala. 2003). Where an appellant first cites a u t h o r i t y f o r an a r g u m e n t i n h i s r e p l y b r i e f , i t i s as i f t h e argument was f i r s t r a i s e d i n t h a t r e p l y b r i e f , and i t w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d . " 27 2110039 936 So. So. 2d a t 493. 2d 157, principle See a l s o L l o y d N o l a n d Hosp. v. Durham, 906 173 ( A l a . 2005) of appellate review ("It i s a that i s s u e n o t r a i s e d i n an a p p e l l a n t ' s only i n the reply b r i e f . " ) ; P. We, court's therefore, find well-established we w i l l initial not consider b r i e f , but raised and R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , no an reversible error A l a . R. App. i n the trial a w a r d o f damages t o M c N e e l b a s e d on C o u s i n s ' s c u t t i n g of timber from t h e d i s p u t e d Cousins next asserts property. that the t r i a l court erred in denying h i s breach-of-the-warranty-deed c l a i m a g a i n s t Houston. The deed by which contained Houston conveyed t h e p r o p e r t y t o Cousins the f o l l o w i n g language: "And I do, f o r m y s e l f a n d f o r my h e i r s , e x e c u t o r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , covenant w i t h s a i d GRANTEE, h i s h e i r s a n d a s s i g n s , t h a t I am l a w f u l l y s e i z e d i n f e e s i m p l e o f s a i d p r e m i s e s ; t h a t he i s f r e e from a l l encumbrances, u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e s t a t e d a b o v e ; t h a t I have a good r i g h t t o s e l l a n d c o n v e y t h e same as a f o r e s a i d ; t h a t I w i l l a n d my h e i r s , executors and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s shall WARRANT a n d DEFEND t h e same t o t h e s a i d GRANTEE, h i s h e i r s a n d assigns forever, against the l a w f u l claims of a l l p e r s o n s , e x c e p t as h e r e i n b e f o r e provided." (Capitalization i n original.) Cousins contained Thus, t h e d e e d f r o m H o u s t o n t o t h e f o l l o w i n g covenants and w a r r a n t i e s : t h e c o v e n a n t t h a t H o u s t o n was s e i z e d i n f e e s i m p l e 28 of the premises 2110039 identified right to i n the convey deed; the the covenant property that described Houston in the deed; the had the covenant of q u i e t enjoyment of the premises d e s c r i b e d i n the d e e d ; a c o v e n a n t t h a t t h e r e were no e n c u m b r a n c e s a g a i n s t premises described would warrant in the and i n the defend the t i t l e deed a g a i n s t e.g., Boyce v. d e e d ; and the claims Cassese, 941 a covenant t h a t to the premises of So. a l l other 2d (addressing a breach-of-warranty-deed 932, Houston described persons. 944 the See, (Ala. claim asserted 2006) against t h e s e l l e r o f r e a l p r o p e r t y ) ; and S t . P a u l I n s . C o r p . v. Owen, 452 So. deeds 2d 482, and the 484 ( A l a . 1984) covenants and (addressing express warranties found warranty therein); a l s o J e s s e P. E v a n s I I I , A l a b a m a P r o p e r t y R i g h t s and § 4.4[b] (3d ed. 2004) ( a d d r e s s i n g e x p r e s s meaning). No exceptions were n o t e d i n the to those Remedies c o v e n a n t s and covenants and see their warranties deed. As n o t e d b e f o r e , t h e d e e d c o n v e y i n g Cousins incorporated survey, which, the Burke boundary l i n e at the legal admitted, creek. c l a i m of t r e s p a s s , the trial To Houston's p r o p e r t y t o description placed from Burke's Houston's western a w a r d M c N e e l damages on c o u r t must have c o n c l u d e d 29 her that 2110039 the d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y , i . e . , the p r o p e r t y to the east of c r e e k and t o t h e w e s t o f t h e f e n c e , b e l o n g s t o M c N e e l and Cousins As must c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e d e e d by w h i c h H o u s t o n conveyed h i s p r o p e r t y to Cousins rightfully trial belonged established that, in fee simple convey t o C o u s i n s . p u r p o r t e d t o convey p r o p e r t y to McNeel. at the p r o p e r t y t o C o u s i n s by w a r r a n t y seized that had w r o n g f u l l y c u t t i m b e r f r o m t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y . a r e s u l t , we that the of time e.g., Houston property Boyce, a c t i o n a l l e g i n g breach of a warranty judgment e n t e r e d the evidence conveyed d e e d , H o u s t o n was a l l the See, Thus, 941 he So. not at his lawfully purported 2d a t 944 to (in d e e d , r e v e r s i n g a summary i n f a v o r of Cassese because, at the time of t h e c o n v e y a n c e t o B o y c e , t h e p r o p e r t y had n o t b e e n f r e e o f a l l e n c u m b r a n c e s , as w a r r a n t e d i n the Evans I I I , Alabama P r o p e r t y ("The Rights deed). and See a l s o Jesse Remedies § c o v e n a n t o f s e i s i n i s b r o k e n i f t h e r e i s an superior title, an outstanding encumbrance P. 4.4[b][I] outstanding diminishing the v a l u e o r e n j o y m e n t o f t h e p r o p e r t y , o r i f t h e g r a n t o r does n o t have substantially the very estate, q u a n t i t y , which i s p u r p o r t e d l y 30 both conveyed."). in quality and 2110039 In h i s b r i e f t o t h i s c o u r t , Houston a s s e r t s t h a t the deed by w h i c h he warranty conveyed the p r o p e r t y to Cousins deed r a t h e r than a g e n e r a l w a r r a n t y that a s t a t u t o r y warranty the grantee and deed c a r r i e s t h a t , b e c a u s e he was was a statutory deed. He a l e s s e r warranty not d e e d and because he d i d n o t h i n g t o c r e a t e M c N e e l ' s s u p e r i o r c l a i m t o he state that warranty c a n n o t be liable Houston's deed to Cousins. deed because a to to r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the d e f e c t i n the l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n i n Cousins's title, argues Cousins's It is sufficient Cousins was not s t a t u t o r y warranty a to statutory deed does not c o n t a i n e x p r e s s w a r r a n t i e s as d i d t h e d e e d H o u s t o n p r o v i d e d t o Cousins. See, implied warranties memorializing but e.g., contains A l a . Code 1975, and covenants a "conveyance" any § 35-4-271 that contains arise no (addressing when express o r a l l o f t h e words " g r a n t , " a deed warranties "bargain," or "sell"). In i t s May 11, 2011, judgment, the t r i a l "defendant Cousins got property located east Therefore t h e r e i s not c o n t r i b u t i o n from Houston t o In e x a c t l y what he court found t h a t of the line h i s postjudgment motion, Cousins 31 bargained for in established the herein. Cousins." n o t i f i e d the t r i a l court 2110039 that, from t h e above-quoted the t r i a l a g a i n s t Houston. that, i f the t r i a l doing so. Based i.e., i t was u n c l e a r w h e t h e r c o u r t h a d r u l e d on h i s b r e a c h - o f - t h e - w a r r a n t y - d e e d claim in language, Cousins also argued, alternatively, c o u r t had denied t h a t c l a i m , The t r i a l court denied that on t h e t r i a l i t had e r r e d motion. c o u r t ' s judgment i n f a v o r o f McNeel, c o n c l u d i n g t h a t C o u s i n s was n o t t h e l e g a l owner o f t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y , which was w a r r a n t e d i n h i s deed, Cousins was e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t i n h i s f a v o r on h i s b r e a c h - o f - t h e warranty-deed c l a i m a g a i n s t Houston. that the t r i a l motion on judgment We, t h e r e f o r e , court e r r e d i n denying Cousins's that issue, to the extent a n d we reverse i t denied Houston a l l e g i n g b r e a c h o f t h e w a r r a n t y deed. cause t o t h e t r i a l postjudgment the t r i a l Cousins's conclude claim court's against We remand t h e c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e amount o f C o u s i n s ' s damages b a s e d upon t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e t r i a l . AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 32 Bryan, a n d Thomas, JJ.,

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.