Doris Hardy v. Ronald W. Smith and Nancy R. Smith

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 04/12/2013 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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, 2012-2013 2110726 D o r i s Hardy v. Ronald W. Smith and Nancy R. Smith Ronald W. Smith and Nancy R. Smith v. D o r i s Hardy Appeals from Tuscaloosa C i r c u i t (CV-08-900451) Court 2110726 MOORE, J u d g e . Doris Hardy appeals from a judgment of the Tuscaloosa C i r c u i t C o u r t ("the t r i a l c o u r t " ) t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t d e n i e d h e r c l a i m a l l e g i n g u n j u s t e n r i c h m e n t a g a i n s t R o n a l d W. and N a n c y R. Smith. t h a t the t r i a l whether The Smiths c o u r t e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t on t h e i s s u e s adversely possessed that also August 5, alleging requested r o a d and whether Hardy 2008, H a r d y History filed a complaint a g a i n s t the c l a i m s o f f r a u d and b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t ; a had road. Procedural Smiths c r o s s - a p p e a l to the e x t e n t B o y d Avenue i s a p u b l i c On Smith declaratory judgment relating to she certain p r o p e r t i e s t h a t she h a d a l l e g e d l y p u r c h a s e d f r o m t h e S m i t h s . Hardy s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d 16, 2009, alleging and the t r e s p a s s and breach judgment Smiths claims. Smiths of and filed filed 2010, an answer nuisance, w i l l f u l injunctive Hardy December 30, filed contract; a motion an amended c o m p l a i n t . they also relief. and September a counterclaim and w a n t o n requested On On October a 8, conduct, declaratory 2010, the f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on a l l H a r d y ' s a response the t r i a l on November 5, 2010. On c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r g r a n t i n g 2 2110726 t h e S m i t h s ' summary-judgment m o t i o n i n p a r t a n d d e n y i n g i ti n part; certain claim and aspects of Hardy's declaratory-judgment Hardy's b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t On F e b r u a r y c l a i m remained 4, 2011, H a r d y moved t h e t r i a l pending. court to allow h e r t o f i l e a s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t , w h i c h a d d e d C o u n t y as a p a r t y a n d r e q u e s t e d a certain portion disputed property") the second of property a d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o w h e t h e r known i s a p u b l i c road. amendment, and Tuscaloosa as B o y d Avenue The t r i a l c o u r t Tuscaloosa County ("the allowed subsequently answered t h e c o m p l a i n t . On F e b r u a r y for 22, 2 0 1 1 , t h e S m i t h s f i l e d a summary j u d g m e n t . an amended m o t i o n On M a r c h 3, 2 0 1 1 , H a r d y moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y i s a public road and whether possession. On March s h e owned t h a t p r o p e r t y 22, 2011, t h e S m i t h s by adverse responded to H a r d y ' s m o t i o n , a n d , on M a r c h 28, 2011, H a r d y f i l e d a r e p l y t o the S m i t h s ' After response. a jury trial on t h e p a r t i e s ' contract claims, a j u r y determined t h a t n e i t h e r p a r t y had proven the e x i s t e n c e of any contract. Thereafter, Hardy moved the t r i a l court to c o n s i d e r a c l a i m t h a t t h e Smiths had been u n j u s t l y e n r i c h e d . 3 2110726 On A u g u s t 1, 2 0 1 1 , a f t e r a hearing the a final trial court remaining property title entered claims; the t r i a l prejudice, Hardy's judgment court setting the disputed Hardy had acquired and i t d i s m i s s e d , without alleging unjust aside the final judgment her unjust-enrichment On M a r c h enrichment 14, 2012, a f t e r claim, among property enrichment. other the t r i a l f i l e d postjudgment and allowing a hearing entered determined road, on H a r d y ' s a final that the determined that to certain property specifically the judgment, and d e n i e d Hardy's u n j u s t - e n r i c h m e n t claims not s p e c i f i c a l l y addressed court a l t e r , t h e j u d g m e n t o r g r a n t h e r a new t r i a l . 4 unjustjudgment disputed Hardy had described i n claim. Any f o r f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and conclusions of law regarding the unjust-enrichment that the t r i a l to i n t h e j u d g m e n t were d e n i e d . T h a t same d a y , H a r d y f i l e d a r e q u e s t requested Hardy claim. court things, i s not a p u b l i c acquired t i t l e also On On O c t o b e r 3, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r prosecute that, of the that A u g u s t 31, 2 0 1 1 , H a r d y a n d t h e S m i t h s b o t h motions. disposing held property, claim claims, and t h a t i s not a p u b l i c road to the disputed on t h e r e m a i n i n g claim. She amend, o r v a c a t e On M a r c h 15, 2012, t h e 2110726 trial court motion. e n t e r e d an On requesting April that order 12, denying 2012, the t r i a l the court the disputed Smiths r o a d was i n abeyance postjudgment Smiths' 2012. motion. motion was the Smiths the On A p r i l disposition whether decided at the of a p p e a l ; that notice pending motion clarify court c l a r i f y that the issue summary-judgment s t a g e a n d n o t a t t r i a l . held a and/or Specifically, property i s a public Hardy f i l e d h e r n o t i c e postjudgment filed reconsider c e r t a i n p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e judgment. requested that the t r i a l Hardy's 26, 2012, o f a p p e a l was of the Smiths' See R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 5 ) , A l a . R. App. P. denied by R u l e 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. operation C i v . P. o f l a w on J u l y On A u g u s t The 11, 15, 2012, t h e Smiths t i m e l y c r o s s - a p p e a l e d . Discussion Appeal On a p p e a l , Hardy argues that the t r i a l denying her claim a l l e g i n g u n j u s t enrichment. Hardy testified that she had paid court erred i n At the t r i a l , the Smiths a total $24,000 f r o m 2000 u n t i l 2002 i n o r d e r t o p u r c h a s e c e r t a i n known as " t h e H o l l o w . " of land H a r d y a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t she a n d t h e S m i t h s h a d a g r e e d t h a t she w o u l d p u r c h a s e 5 from t h e Smiths a 2110726 mobile home situated. had and t h e l a n d She t e s t i f i e d with the Smiths, upon which the mobile home was t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o t h e agreement she s h e was r e q u i r e d t o pay t h e monthly payments on a l o a n t h a t was s e c u r e d b y t h e m o b i l e home a n d t h e insurance on t h e m o b i l e 2000 u n t i l home a n d t h a t t h e l a w s u i t was f i l e d . t h e l a w s u i t was f i l e d , She t e s t i f i e d to that, after s h e d e p o s i t e d t h e m o n t h l y l o a n payments i n t o her a t t o r n e y ' s t r u s t account. hand, t e s t i f i e d s h e h a d done so f r o m The S m i t h s , on t h e o t h e r t h a t they had never agreed t o s e l l t h e Hollow Hardy, b u t , t h e y s a i d , they had agreed t o s e l l Hardy t h e m o b i l e home a n d l e s s t h a n one a c r e o f r e a l p r o p e r t y upon w h i c h the mobile home was s i t u a t e d . The S m i t h s testified that, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r a g r e e m e n t , H a r d y was t o p a y them $1,000 p e r month f o r two y e a r s , payments secured was on t h e m o b i l e by the mobile t o make the loan and i n s u r a n c e home, a n d was t o p a y o f f t h e l o a n home within two years. I t was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t Hardy never p a i d o f f t h e l o a n b u t t h a t she had made t h e $1,000 m o n t h l y the monthly payments f o r two y e a r s a n d h a d p a i d l o a n and i n s u r a n c e payments u n t i l l a w s u i t was f i l e d . 6 t h e time t h e 2110726 As noted p r e v i o u s l y , a f t e r a j u r y t r i a l on the contract c l a i m s , t h e j u r y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t n e i t h e r p a r t y had p r o v e n t h a t a contract existed. Thereafter, Hardy r e q u e s t e d t h a t she be a w a r d e d $24,000 on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e S m i t h s had b e e n u n j u s t l y enriched by r e c e i v e d any the payments property she had made b e c a u s e she had in return. "'In order f o r a p l a i n t i f f to p r e v a i l on a claim of unjust enrichment, the p l a i n t i f f must show t h a t "'"the '"defendant holds money which, in equity and good conscience, belongs to the plaintiff o r h o l d s money w h i c h was i m p r o p e r l y p a i d t o d e f e n d a n t because of m i s t a k e or f r a u d . " ' D i c k i n s o n v. Cosmos B r o a d . Co., 782 So. 2d 260, 266 ( A l a . 2000) (quoting Hancock-Hazlett Gen. C o n s t r . Co. v. T r a n e Co., 499 So. 2d 1385, 1387 (Ala. 1986)).... 'The doctrine of unjust e n r i c h m e n t i s an o l d e q u i t a b l e remedy p e r m i t t i n g t h e c o u r t i n e q u i t y and good c o n s c i e n c e to disallow one to be unjustly enriched at the expense of a n o t h e r . ' B a t t l e s v. Atchison, 545 So. 2d 814, 815 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989) " ' A v i s R e n t A Car S y s . , I n c . v. H e i l m a n , 8 7 6 So. 2d 1111, 1123 ( A l a . 2003). "'One is u n j u s t l y enriched i f h i s r e t e n t i o n of a b e n e f i t w o u l d be u n j u s t . ' " W e l c h v. Montgomery Eye P h y s i c i a n s , P.C., 891 So. 2d 837, 843 (Ala. 7 not 2110726 2004) ( q u o t i n g J o r d a n v. M i t c h e l l , 705 So. 2d 453, 458 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ) . The r e t e n t i o n of a b e n e f i t i s u n j u s t i f "'"'(1) the donor of the b e n e f i t ... a c t e d u n d e r a m i s t a k e o f f a c t or i n m i s r e l i a n c e on a r i g h t o r d u t y , o r (2) t h e r e c i p i e n t o f t h e benefit ... engaged in some u n c o n s c i o n a b l e c o n d u c t , s u c h as f r a u d , c o e r c i o n , o r abuse o f a c o n f i d e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . In the absence of mistake or m i s r e l i a n c e by t h e d o n o r o r w r o n g f u l c o n d u c t by t h e r e c i p i e n t , t h e r e c i p i e n t may have b e e n e n r i c h e d , b u t he i s n o t deemed t o have b e e n u n j u s t l y enriched.'" " ' W e l c h , 891 So. 2d a t 843 ( q u o t i n g J o r d a n , 705 So. 2d a t 4 5 8 ) . The s u c c e s s o r f a i l u r e of an u n j u s t - e n r i c h m e n t c l a i m depends on t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f each case. Heilman, s u p r a . ' " M a n t i p l y v. M a n t i p l y , 951 So. 2006) (emphasis o m i t t e d ) . " 2d 638, 654-55 ( A l a . P r e s l e y v. B . I . C . C o n s t r . , I n c . , 64 So. 3d 610, App. 625 (Ala. Civ. 2009). In the present case, the evidence indicated t h a t Hardy had b e e n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e m o b i l e home f r o m 2000 u n t i l time of the t r i a l . F u r t h e r , the Smiths the had n o t r e c e i v e d any payment on t h e m o b i l e home f r o m t h e t i m e t h a t t h e l a w s u i t was filed until the the t r i a l . T h e r e was 8 no e v i d e n c e indicating 2110726 fair r e n t a l value o f t h e m o b i l e home o r w h e t h e r t h e payments H a r d y h a d made f r o m 2000 u n t i l addition, 2008 e x c e e d e d t h a t v a l u e . t h e S m i t h s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m o b i l e home was i n a s t a t e o f d i s r e p a i r a t the time o f the t r i a l . particular burden In facts, we c o n c l u d e t h a t o f showing Therefore, that unjust-enrichment Hardy f a i l e d t h e Smiths we a f f i r m t h e t r i a l B a s e d on t h o s e t o meet h e r were u n j u s t l y court's enriched. j u d g m e n t on H a r d y ' s claim. Cross-Appeal In court their erred whether Hardy cross-appeal, i n entering the disputed had a c q u i r e d adverse possession. t h e Smiths argue t h a t a summary property judgment i s a public possession the t r i a l on t h e i s s u e s road of the disputed and whether property by 1 "'We r e v i e w a summary j u d g m e n t de novo, a p p l y i n g t h e same s t a n d a r d as was a p p l i e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t . A m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i s t o be g r a n t e d when no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s a n d the moving p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment as a m a t t e r o f l a w . R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. A p a r t y m o v i n g f o r a summary j u d g m e n t must make a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g " t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e A l t h o u g h t h e j u d g m e n t does n o t s p e c i f y t h a t t h e s e i s s u e s were d e c i d e d a s a m a t t e r o f l a w , t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d on e i t h e r i s s u e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t r i a l a n d t h e d i s c u s s i o n s a t t h e t r i a l i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e i s s u e s w o u l d be d e c i d e d on t h e m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . 1 9 2110726 as t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t a n d t h a t t h e m o v i n g p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . " R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. The c o u r t must v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e n o n m o v i n g p a r t y a n d must r e s o l v e a l l r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t s a g a i n s t t h e movant. H a n n e r s v. B a l f o u r G u t h r i e , I n c . , 564 So. 2d 412 ( A l a . 1990) . I f t h e movant meets t h i s b u r d e n , " t h e b u r d e n t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e nonmovant t o rebut t h e movant's prima facie showing by ' s u b s t a n t i a l evidence.'" Lee v . C i t y o f Gadsden, 592 So. 2d 1036, 1038 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . ' " B a r r e t t v. Lee B r a s s 2003) Co., 883 So. 2d 227, 228 ( A l a . C i v . App. ( q u o t i n g B a i l e y v. R.E. G a r r i s o n T r u c k i n g 2d 122, 123 ( A l a . C i v . App. Co., 834 So. 2002)). A. Whether t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y i s a public road "A r o a d c a n be made p u b l i c i n one o f t h r e e ways: '"'1) b y a r e g u l a r p r o c e e d i n g f o r t h a t p u r p o s e ; 2) by a d e d i c a t i o n o f t h e r o a d b y t h e owner o f t h e l a n d it crosses, with acceptance by the proper a u t h o r i t i e s ; o r 3) t h e way i s g e n e r a l l y u s e d b y t h e p u b l i c f o r twenty years.'"'" Harper v. C o a t s , 988 So. 2d 5 0 1 , 504 A r n e t t v. C i t y o f M o b i l e , quoting i n turn Sam R a i n e ( A l a . 2008) (quoting 449 So. 2d 1222, 1224 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) , Constr. Co. v. L a k e v i e w I n c . , 407 So. 2d 542, 544 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) , q u o t i n g Estates, i n turn v. H o p k i n s , 288 A l a . 466, 472, 262 So. 2d 289, 294 Powell (1972)). W i t h r e g a r d t o s t a t u t o r y d e d i c a t i o n , we n o t e t h a t , on one o f t h e maps i n t h e r e c o r d , t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y i sindicated as b e i n g a p a r t o f B o y d A v e n u e ; h o w e v e r , t h e r e i s no n o r t h e r n 10 2110726 boundary t o B o y d Avenue disputed property. street must at the p a r t i c u l a r For a proper be so i d e n t i f i e d location of the statutory dedication, "[t]he on t h e map, as t o l o c a t i o n , w i d t h , a n d l e n g t h , t h a t a s u r v e y o r may t h e r e a f t e r go upon t h e ground and l a y i t out." 100 So. 772, 774 grounds). having M a n n i n g v. House, 211 A l a . 570, 573, (1924) (superseded by statute on other B e c a u s e t h e map shows t h e p u r p o r t e d p u b l i c r o a d a s no n o r t h e r n boundary, surveyor t o " l a y i t out." i t would be i m p o s s i b l e fora Therefore, the t r i a l court properly f o u n d t h a t t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y was n o t s t a t u t o r i l y dedicated as a p u b l i c r o a d . " [ I ] n o r d e r t o make a common l a w d e d i c a t i o n , t h e owner o f p r o p e r t y must e x p r e s s an i n t e n t i o n t o d e d i c a t e t h e p r o p e r t y . A l s o , t h e r e must be an a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e d e d i c a t e d p r o p e r t y b y the p u b l i c o r b y an a u t h o r i z e d acting i n i t s behalf." (Ala. 1988). adjacent person o r body of persons S t a p l e r v . H i c k s , 530 So. 2d 230, 231 In the present case, the disputed property i s t o a p a r c e l o f property, which i s separate from t h e p r o p e r t y p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d , on w h i c h a t w o - s t o r y house i s located Hardy. ("the home s i t e " ) Although and which t h e Smiths had s o l d t o B o y d Avenue a p p e a r s on t h e p l a t a s e a r l y as 11 2110726 1912, the undisputed evidence indicated t h a t no p u b l i c road had e v e r b e e n o p e n e d o r m a i n t a i n e d on t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y . The o n l y e v i d e n c e o f t h e c o u n t y ' s i n v o l v e m e n t was t h a t R o n a l d Smith had r e q u e s t e d t h a t Tuscaloosa County p u t i n a drainage d i t c h a l o n g t h e roadway c o m p r i s i n g t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y a n d t h a t t h e c o u n t y h a d done s o . R o n a l d S m i t h t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h a t had occurred before indicated 1988. Further, the undisputed evidence t h a t t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y had been m a i n t a i n e d by t h e S m i t h s a n d , s u b s e q u e n t l y , b y H a r d y f o r o v e r 20 y e a r s . Smiths had b u i l t disputed continued a driveway property and had and a " t u r n - a r o u n d " sodded t o use t h e driveway area; and t u r n - a r o u n d d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y a f t e r she p u r c h a s e d Smiths. that t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e a r e a on t h e Hardy area t h e home s i t e B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g e v i d e n c e , we The had on t h e from t h e conclude that t o i n d i c a t e t h a t any common- l a w d e d i c a t i o n o f t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y as a p u b l i c r o a d h a d been a c c e p t e d by t h e c o u n t y . Furthermore, relied we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e same e v i d e n c e on i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e c o u n t y t h a t we d i d not accept any common-law d e d i c a t i o n a l s o p r e c l u d e s a f i n d i n g o f a d e d i c a t i o n by p r e s c r i p t i o n , s e e F o r d v. A l a b a m a B y - P r o d s . 12 C o r p . , 392 So. 2110726 2d 217, 218 ( A l a . 1980) ("An open, d e f i n e d roadway, reclaimed land, i n continuous without l e t or hindrance a p u b l i c road proper App. f o r a p e r i o d o f t w e n t y y e a r s becomes would and, even i f t h e r e indicate that Kennedy v. H i n e s , 660 So. the road was had 2d 1335, a been 1339 (Ala. t h a t the t r i a l court 1995). B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we properly by t h e p u b l i c as a h i g h w a y prescription."), dedication, abandoned, see Civ. by use through found that the conclude disputed property was not a public road. B. W h e t h e r H a r d y a d v e r s e l y p o s s e s s e d The Smiths also argue p e r i o d of her p o s s e s s i o n that Hardy the d i s p u t e d could not property "tack" of the d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y onto the their p e r i o d o f p o s s e s s i o n t o meet t h e s t a t u t o r y p e r i o d f o r a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n because, they say, they d i d not i n t e n d t o a d v e r s e l y possess the d i s p u t e d property. "Another e s s e n t i a l element of adverse p o s s e s s i o n r e l a t e s to the c l a i m a n t ' s i n t e n t to a s s e r t dominion and c o n t r o l o v e r t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y . R e y n o l d s v. R u t l a n d , 365 So. 2d 656 ( A l a . 1978) . The Reyno l d s c o u r t emphasized, however, t h a t a l t h o u g h 'i n t e n t t o intent c l a i m t h e d i s p u t e d s t r i p i s r e q u i r e d , t h e r e i s no r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e i n t e n t be t o c l a i m p r o p e r t y o f another, as such a rule would make adverse p o s s e s s i o n d e p e n d e n t upon b a d f a i t h . P o s s e s s i o n i s h o s t i l e when t h e p o s s e s s o r h o l d s and c l a i m s p r o p e r t y 13 2110726 as h i s own, w h e t h e r by m i s t a k e o r w i l l f u l l y . S m i t h v. Brown, [282 A l a . 528, 213 So. 2d 374 (1968)].' I d . a t 657-58." S t r i c k l a n d v. M a r k o s , 566 In that So. 2d 229, 233 ( A l a . 1990). h i s d e p o s i t i o n , Ronald Smith u n e q u i v o c a l l y he had not intended property and disputed property evidence that adversely that, at to the possess to adversely a l l times, be a Smiths the possess he public had road; that property. 1988, he that county ditch on a drainage property; that testimony i s o b j e c t i v e evidence did not intend to Although Smiths' adversely possess there i s other o b j e c t i v e evidence i n t e n t was, had the to further requested disputed t h a t the Smiths disputed property. i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t h e n o n m o v i n g p a r t y and must r e s o l v e a l l r e a s o n a b l e a g a i n s t t h e movant.'" t h e r e was is i n f a c t , to possess the d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y , t h i s c o u r t "'must v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e to the the intend Smith t h a t , a t some p o i n t b e f o r e install disputed testimony not testified the the understood subjectively did disputed testified B a r r e t t , 883 c o n f l i c t i n g evidence So. doubts 2d a t 228. Because r e g a r d i n g the Smiths' i n t e n t to a d v e r s e l y p o s s e s s t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y , we 14 r e v e r s e the trial 2110726 c o u r t ' s summary j u d g m e n t on H a r d y ' s a d v e r s e - p o s s e s s i o n and remand t h i s APPEAL cause f o r further proceedings on t h a t claim issue. AFFIRMED. CROSS-APPEAL -- AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Donaldson, J . , recuses himself. 15

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.