Childers v. Darby
Annotate this Case
David Childers and Robert DeShawn Childers ("Shawn") appealed the Circuit Court's judgment quieting title in a certain piece of real property, on which is situated a house, in Leroy Darby. The trial court admitted into evidence the deposition of David, who testified that he had purchased the property at issue at a foreclosure sale in 1995. He stated that he had repaired the house, had cleaned up the yard, and had used the surrounding land to train his horses from 1995 through 2003 or 2004. He explained that he had filed a deed reflecting his ownership of the property but that he had never paid taxes on the property because he had been informed by the "tax office" that he was exempt from taxes because he was 65 years old and totally disabled. According to David, his son Shawn has lived on the property since 2000. Evidence was also presented indicating that the deed filed by David was not for the property at issue but for an adjoining one-acre lot. Additionally, a mortgage-foreclosure deed indicating that the one-acre lot owned by David had been foreclosed on in 2004 was admitted into evidence, and additional evidence was admitted indicating that that property had subsequently been sold several times. After considering the testimony and other evidence, the trial court quieted title in the real property, including the house, in Darby. Shawn and David moved for a new trial or, in the alternative, to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, arguing, among other grounds, that the trial court had erred in quieting title in Darby because, they asserted, the evidence did not establish that Darby was in peaceable possession of the property. The trial court denied the motion, and Shawn and David appealed. The Supreme Court's review of the evidence established that the trial court erred in quieting title in Darby because the evidence did not establish that Darby was in peaceable possession of the property. Darby's testimony that he had only driven past the property several times but had never walked the property or
obtained actual possession of the property established that he was not in actual possession of the property. The evidence further established that, although Darby had legal title to the property, Shawn was living on the property. Therefore, because Shawn was in actual possession of the property, the evidence did not establish that Darby had constructive possession of the property. The record, however, did not establish that either Shawn or David had peaceable possession of the property or that either Shawn or David had acquired title to the property by adverse possession. Therefore, the record did not support a judgment quieting title in either Shawn or David.
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.