LaDon Jones v. Adams Farms et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/18/2013 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 ((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, 2012-2013 2111109 LaDon Jones v. Adams Farms e t a l . Appeal from Henry C i r c u i t (CV-12-900011) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . LaDon J o n e s a p p e a l s C i r c u i t Court from a judgment e n t e r e d by t h e Henry ("the t r i a l c o u r t " ) i n f a v o r o f Adams Farms, Don Adams, a n d F i r s t S o u t h Farm C r e d i t , ACA. 2111109 The record from a d i s p u t e long a n d 30 indicates the following. over feet Construction, a strip wide a general In arises 210 f e e t 1972, Jones c o n s i s t i n g o f LaDon, h i s L i n w a r d J o n e s , p u r c h a s e d L o t 52 f r o m B r a c k i n a n d L o t 54 f r o m R a l p h Ward, b e l i e v i n g t h e l o t s t o be two a d j a c e n t The case approximately ("the s t r i p " ) . partnership f a t h e r , and h i s b r o t h e r , U.L. of land This strip i n question I n A u g u s t 2011, which p a r c e l s , e a c h c o n s i s t i n g o f one a c r e o f l a n d . shared l i e s d i r e c t l y b e t w e e n t h e s e two l o t s . Carl Brackin a boundary s o l d the remaining 1 line with L o t 52, t o Adams Questions of ownership of the s t r i p performed i n connection Brackin On Adams, Brackin arose during land, Farms. the survey w i t h t h e conveyance o f t h e remaining l a n d f r o m C a r l t o Adams Farms. February 13, 2012, LaDon t h e owner collectively complaint, o f Adams sued Farms Adams (sometimes Farms a n d Don referred as "Adams"), t o q u i e t t i t l e t o t h e s t r i p . LaDon adverse possession. asserted ownership of the s t r i p LaDon a l s o r e q u e s t e d to I nthe through that the t r i a l court i s s u e a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g order, a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n , and a p e r m a n e n t i n j u n c t i o n p r e v e n t i n g Adams f r o m e n t e r i n g upon Carl Brackin d i e d i n 1990. 1 i s t h e s o n a n d h e i r o f U.L. B r a c k i n , 2 who 2111109 the strip. order on renewed. LaDon The t r i a l February court i s s u e d a temporary 13, 2 0 1 2 ; t h a t Adams a n s w e r e d LaDon's filed order restraining was subsequently c o m p l a i n t on M a r c h 6, 2012. an amended c o m p l a i n t on M a r c h 14, 2012, a d d i n g F i r s t South Farm C r e d i t , ACA ( " F i r s t S o u t h " ) Adams f i l e d an answer t o t h e amended c o m p l a i n t 2 as a defendant; on M a r c h 20, 2012. The t r i a l for c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g LaDon's a preliminary injunction i n s t r u c t i o n of the t r i a l of l a w on A p r i l on M a r c h c o u r t , LaDon 25, 2 0 1 2 ; Adams memorandum o f l a w a n d a m o t i o n i n c l u d e d an a f f i d a v i t filed 28, 2 0 1 2 . request At the 3 s u b m i t t e d a memorandum filed a response to the f o r a summary j u d g m e n t f r o m C a r l on May 1, 2012. an a n s w e r t o t h e amended c o m p l a i n t that First South and a motion fora summary j u d g m e n t on May 8, 2012. A testimony trial was held i s as f o l l o w s . on May Both t h a t they had b e l i e v e d t h e l o t s F i r s t South Adams Farms. 2 30, Linward 2012. The a n d LaDon they purchased relevant testified were one a c r e h o l d s t h e m o r t g a g e t o t h e p r o p e r t y owned b y A l t h o u g h t h e r e i s no o r d e r r e g a r d i n g t h e p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n , LaDon's memorandum o f l a w i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e t r i a l court granted the p r e l i m i n a r y injunction. 3 3 2111109 e a c h a n d s h a r e d a common b o u n d a r y line and t h a t neither of them h a d n o t i c e d t h a t t h e d e e d f o r L o t 52, w h i c h was a d m i t t e d into evidence, Construction conveyed only 0.88 acres. d i s s o l v e d and conveyed L o t s individually. LaDon testified that I n 1982, J o n e s 52 a n d 54 t o LaDon from 1972 t o 1982 he m a i n t a i n e d a y e a r - r o u n d g a r d e n on L o t 52 a n d on t h e s t r i p . He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d to h i s property that the s t r i p provided a n d t h a t he h a d u s e d t h e s t r i p the only 4 access f o r i n g r e s s and e g r e s s s i n c e 1972. LaDon a n d h i s s o n , Huey J o n e s , from 1982 t h r o u g h raise cattle. constructed a fenced 1990s, According longer "cattle that, were u s e d t o LaDon t e s t i f i e d , r u n " from h i s barn, he l o c a t e d on t h e s t r i p , i n t o t h e g r a z i n g a r e a l o c a t e d on L o t Testimony early 1986, L o t 52 a n d t h e s t r i p As p a r t o f t h a t o p e r a t i o n , L o t 54, a c r o s s 52. further testified further that t o LaDon, pastured same indicated that, area was used he h a d removed horses, from 1986 u n t i l t h e t o pasture the fence b u t he h a d c o n t i n u e d after horses. he no to maintain a g a r d e n on t h e s t r i p a n d t o mow t h e g r a s s g r o w i n g on t h e s t r i p . L a D o n was a l r e a d y t h e s o l e owner o f a n d r e s i d e d on L o t 55, w h i c h i s a d j a c e n t t o L o t 54. H i s h o u s e b u r n e d down i n 1982. He r e b u i l t t h e h o u s e on L o t s 54 a n d 55. 4 4 2111109 He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d e r e c t e d a b i r d h o u s e on t h e s t r i p i n 1983 t h a t r e m a i n e d u n t i l Don Adams, o r h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , removed i t i n 2 0 1 1 . Carl testified 5 that he remaining Brackin land According to Carl, beginning remaining Brackin began land after to h i s father after" died i n 1993, he d r o v e twice a year, i n g r e s s t o and e g r e s s from t h e p r o p e r t y . that during those biannual "look using the i n 1990. across the s t r i p Carl also the as testified v i s i t s he h a d n e v e r w i t n e s s e d any e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t LaDon, o r anyone e l s e , was a s s e r t i n g ownership of the s t r i p . LaDon had used C a r l a l s o t e s t i f i e d by a f f i d a v i t the s t r i p with permission from that the Brackin f a m i l y a n d t h a t he w o u l d have t a k e n " t h e n e c e s s a r y a c t i o n " h a d he the witnessed an a t t e m p t b y LaDon t o e x e r c i s e ownership over strip. The t r i a l court entered a j u d g m e n t on June 2 1 , 2012. The judgment s t a t e d : L a D o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he n o t i c e d t h e s u r v e y f l a g s placed i n connection w i t h Adams F a r m s ' p u r c h a s e o f t h e r e m a i n i n g B r a c k i n l a n d , he e r e c t e d a f e n c e a c r o s s t h e s t r i p and p o s t e d a "No T r e s p a s s i n g " s i g n . He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t Don Adams, o r h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , t o r e down t h e f e n c e , t h e s i g n , a n d t h e b i r d h o u s e w i t h an e x c a v a t o r . 5 5 2111109 "The e s s e n t i a l f a c t s : [ L a D o n ] and h i s p r e d e c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t have owned l o t 54 t h e l a n d where h i s home i s s i t u a t e d i n N e w v i l l e s i n c e the 1960's. In 1972 [ L a D o n ] p u r c h a s e d l o t 52 f r o m U.L. B r a c k i n . L o t 52 was a s e c t i o n s l i g h t l y l e s s t h a t one a c r e o f an a r e a o f f a r m l a n d . [ L a D o n ] s t a t e s h i s b e l i e f t h a t l o t 52 was one a c r e , b u t t h e d e e d e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t U.L B r a c k i n r e t a i n e d a ' s t r i p ' of l a n d f o r access t o h i s f i e l d . T h i s s t r i p o f l a n d d i v i d e s l o t 52 and l o t 54 and i s t h e s u b j e c t o f [ L a D o n ' s ] c l a i m t o q u i e t t i t l e by a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n . O v e r t h e y e a r s l o t 52 was g e n e r a l l y u s e d by [ L a D o n ] as a g a r d e n . From 1982 t o 1986 l o t 52 was u s e d t o g r a z e cows and f r o m 1986 t o t h e 1990's h o r s e s were p a s t u r e d there. In 1982 [LaDon] e r e c t e d a fence across the s t r i p to c r e a t e a l a n e o r p a t h w a y f o r t h e cows t o p a s s b e t w e e n l o t 52 and l o t 54. Sometime i n t h e 1990's [ L a D o n ] removed t h e f e n c e . S i n c e t h e p u r c h a s e o f l o t 52 [ L a D o n ] has mowed t h e g r a s s on t h e s t r i p and e r e c t e d a g o u r d p o l e on t h e s t r i p i n 1983. The s t r i p was r a r e l y , i f e v e r u s e d f o r a c c e s s t o U.L. Brackin's farmland b e c a u s e more s u i t a b l e a c c e s s e x i s t s i n a n o t h e r l o c a t i o n . The s t r i p i s e s s e n t i a l l y s i t u a t e d i n l o c a t i o n and s i z e as what w o u l d be a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e Town o f N e w v i l l e ' s p a v e d r o a d known as P a t t e r s o n S t r e e t , which a b r u p t l y stops at the s t r i p . A l l was n e i g h b o r l y and p e a c e f u l t h e s e many y e a r s u n t i l t h e h e i r s o f U.L. B r a c k i n s o l d t h e f i e l d t o D e f e n d a n t Adams F a r m s . R e a l i z i n g t h e d e e d o f t h e f i e l d i n c l u d e d the s t r i p , [LaDon] e r e c t e d a fence b l o c k i n g a c c e s s and p o s t e d 'no t r e s p a s s i n g ' s i g n s . I n r e s p o n s e [Don A d a m s ] u s e d h i s e x c a v a t o r t o t e a r down t h e f e n c e and t h e g o u r d p o l e . The S h e r i f f was summoned and t h e p e n d i n g l i t i g a t i o n t o q u i e t t i t l e was i n s t i t u t e d . 6 The r e c o r d c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t Jones C o n s t r u c t i o n p u r c h a s e d L o t 54 i n 1972 and t h a t J o n e s C o n s t r u c t i o n c o n v e y e d L o t 54 t o LaDon i n 1982. None o f t h e p a r t i e s n o t e t h i s e r r o r on a p p e a l . 6 6 2111109 "The c l a i m f o r a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n i s g o v e r n e d b y a t e n - y e a r r u l e . Code o f A l a b a m a 6-5-200. The C o u r t has c a r e f u l l y w e i g h e d t h e e v i d e n c e and s t u d i e d t h e a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n c a s e s o f t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t and the Court of C i v i l Appeals and has d e l i b e r a t e d t h e c a s e . T i t l e by a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n i s a h e a v y b u r d e n , by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e , w i t h a p r e s u m p t i o n i n f a v o r o f t h e r e c o r d owner. C o o p e r v. C a t e , 591 So. 2d 68 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . " A c c o r d i n g l y , j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d f o r [Adams and F i r s t S o u t h ] on [ L a D o n ' s ] c l a i m t o q u i e t t i t l e by a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n ; judgment e n t e r e d f o r [ L a D o n ] awarding a p r i v a t e easement by p r e s c r i p t i o n o v e r t h e strip between l o t 52 and l o t 54. Any other relief r e q u e s t e d by e i t h e r p a r t y and n o t a d d r e s s e d by t h i s order i s denied." LaDon t i m e l y 2012, a p p e a l e d t o our supreme c o u r t on J u l y 27, an t h e supreme c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d t h e c a s e t o t h i s c o u r t pursuant argues alleging to § that 12-2-7, A l a . Code 1975. the adverse trial court erred In h i s b r i e f , in possession i n light denying of the e x p r e s s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t i n LaDon's f a v o r . He LaDon his trial further claim court's argues t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s a w a r d o f an e a s e m e n t by p r e s c r i p t i o n i s essentially elements a conclusion that LaDon also satisfied of adverse p o s s e s s i o n . " I n 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 . 1980), [ o u r supreme c o u r t ] s u m m a r i z e d t h e e l e m e n t s t h a t must be p r o v e n b e f o r e a f i n d i n g o f a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n can be made: 7 the 2111109 "'In A l a b a m a t h e r e a r e b a s i c a l l y two types of adverse possession, these two types being s t a t u t o r y adverse possession and a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n by prescription. A d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n by p r e s c r i p t i o n r e q u i r e s actual, e x c l u s i v e , open, n o t o r i o u s and h o s t i l e p o s s e s s i o n under a c l a i m of r i g h t f o r a p e r i o d o f t w e n t y y e a r s . See, F i t t s v. A l e x a n d e r , 277 A l a . 372, 170 So. 2d 808 (1965). Statutory adverse possession r e q u i r e s t h e same e l e m e n t s , b u t t h e s t a t u t e provides further that i f the adverse p o s s e s s o r h o l d s u n d e r c o l o r o f t i t l e , has p a i d taxes f o r ten years, or d e r i v e s h i s t i t l e by d e s c e n t c a s t o r d e v i s e f r o m a p o s s e s s o r , he may acquire t i t l e i n ten y e a r s , as o p p o s e d t o t h e t w e n t y years required for adverse possession by prescription.§ 6-5-200, A l a . Code 1975. See, Long v. L a d d , 273 A l a . 410, 142 So. 2d 660 (1962) .'" F o r t Morgan C i v i c A s s ' n , 3d 1042, To 1051 I n c . v. C i t y o f G u l f S h o r e s , 1 0 0 (Ala. 2012). prevail on his 7 adverse-possession claim, r e q u i r e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t o p r e s e n t c l e a r and evidence was t o overcome t h e p r e s u m p t i o n permissive. The trial So. LaDon was convincing t h a t h i s use o f t h e strip c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i n c l u d e d numerous T h e t r i a l c o u r t h e l d t h a t LaDon's c l a i m i s g o v e r n e d by t h e 1 0 - y e a r r u l e p u r s u a n t t o § 6-5-200, A l a . Code 1975. We n o t e t h a t t h i s c l a i m does n o t a p p e a r t o meet t h e s t a t u t o r y adverse-possession requirements outlined in § 6-5-200; h o w e v e r , none o f t h e p a r t i e s have r a i s e d t h a t i s s u e on a p p e a l . 7 8 2111109 f i n d i n g s o f f a c t t h a t a p p e a r t o s u p p o r t LaDon's c l a i m t h a t h i s use of the s t r i p was However, t h e express rather trial f i n d i n g as hostile hostile. than court's to whether judgment d i d not LaDon's use permissive. Instead, of include an strip was the the trial court d e t e r m i n e d t h a t LaDon had n o t a d v e r s e l y p o s s e s s e d t h e s t r i p implying that However, the LaDon's trial use court of the strip alternatively p r e s c r i p t i v e easement o v e r t h e s t r i p . 20 See was -¬ permissive. awarded LaDon a H o s t i l e use o f l a n d f o r y e a r s i s an e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f a p r e s c r i p t i v e e a s e m e n t . J o h n s o n v. Coshatt, 591 So. 2d 483, 485 ( A l a . 1991). "'To e s t a b l i s h an easement by p r e s c r i p t i o n , t h e claimant must use the premises over which the easement i s c l a i m e d f o r a p e r i o d o f t w e n t y y e a r s o r more, a d v e r s e l y t o t h e owner o f t h e p r e m i s e s , u n d e r claim of right, exclusive, continuous, and u n i n t e r r u p t e d , w i t h a c t u a l or p r e s u m p t i v e knowledge o f t h e owner. The p r e s u m p t i o n i s t h a t t h e use i s permissive, and the c l a i m a n t has the burden of p r o v i n g t h a t t h e use was a d v e r s e t o t h e owner. Cotton v. May, [293 A l a . 212, 301 So. 2d 168 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ] ; B e l c h e r v. B e l c h e r , 284 A l a . 254, 224 So. 2d 613 ( 1 9 6 9 ) ; West v. West, 252 A l a . 296, 40 So. 2d 873 (1949) .'" Id. ( q u o t i n g B u l l v. S a l s m a n , 435 Because we cannot r u l i n g s , we reverse reconcile the t r i a l the So. 2d 27, 29 judgment's (Ala. contradictory c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t and 9 1983)). remand t h e 2111109 cause f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o make a f i n d i n g r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r LaDon's u s e o f t h e s t r i p the evidence possession is was p e r m i s s i v e already presented and t o r u l e and p r e s c r i p t i v e - e a s e m e n t consistent with that o r h o s t i l e b a s e d on on t h e adverse- c l a i m s i n a manner t h a t finding. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n 10 a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r .

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.