Kelley v. Randolph
Annotate this Case
This case arose from a title dispute. Appellants Mark and Becky Kelley and appellees Erich and Suzette Randolph were adjoining property owners. Their backyards are partly contiguous with a strip of land between their respective properties designated by plat as an alleyway. The alleyway did not run from street to street, and there was no evidence of it ever having been used as an alleyway. Any remnants of the alleyway are no longer visible. The Randolphs purchased their property in 1987. In 1990, they constructed railroad tie terraces in their backyard to raise and level the yard. The Randolphs believed all construction was completed within their property line. The Kelleys bought their property in 2007. In 2011, they commissioned a survey to determine their rear property line so that they could design and install a landscape project. Their investigation revealed to all parties for the first time that the Randolphs’ terraces and construction debris from the Randolphs’ property had encroached onto the alleyway and over appellants’ rear property line. Appellants informed the Randolphs of the encroachment and asked them to relocate the terraces and remove the debris, but the Randolphs refused. The Kelleys sued, claiming trespass and sought a declaratory judgment: (1) establishing title to their property; (2) determining that they would have no duty to provide lateral support to the Randolphs’ property after the encroaching terraces and construction debris were removed; and (3) requiring the Randolphs to abate the nuisance created by the blockage in the alleyway. The Randolphs claimed in response that they had obtained prescriptive title to both the privately owned alleyway and a portion of appellants’ property through adverse possession. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court denied the Kelleys' motion and granted the Randolphs’ motion on their claim of prescriptive title by adverse possession. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment rulings.
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.