OPEN LAKE SPORTING CLUB v. LAUDERDALE HAYWOOD ANGLING CLUB (Tenn. Ct. App. January 13, 2011)
This appeal involves a dispute over the location of a boundary line between tracts of land owned by two hunting clubs. After many years of litigation, the parties agreed that a new survey would be conducted by a new surveyor and that they would be bound by his decision.
After the new surveyor filed a report and survey, one of the clubs filed a motion to set aside the survey, contending that the new surveyor did not make an independent determination regarding the location of the boundary line, but rather, copied a previous survey that was completed in the past. The trial judge refused to hold a hearing regarding the validity of the survey because the parties had agreed to be bound by the surveyor's decision. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/openlake_011311.pdf
Showing posts with label Boundary Dispute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Boundary Dispute. Show all posts
January 13, 2011
April 01, 2010
Court reviews trial court's decision in a case about a boundary dispute
MARILOU GILBERT v. DON BIRDWELL and wife, CHRISTINE BIRDWELL (Tenn. Ct. App. April 1, 2010)
This case arises from a boundary line dispute. Appellants appeal the trial court's denial of their petition to reopen proof after the court rendered its decision, establishing the disputed boundary in accordance with the Appellee's survey. Finding no error, we affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/gilbertm_040110.pdf
This case arises from a boundary line dispute. Appellants appeal the trial court's denial of their petition to reopen proof after the court rendered its decision, establishing the disputed boundary in accordance with the Appellee's survey. Finding no error, we affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/gilbertm_040110.pdf
Court reviews trial court decision not to reopen proof in a case regarding a boundary dispute
MARILOU GILBERT v. DON BIRDWELL and wife, CHRISTINE BIRDWELL (Tenn. Ct. App. April 1, 2010)
This case arises from a boundary line dispute. Appellants appeal the trial court's denial of their petition to reopen proof after the court rendered its decision, establishing the disputed boundary in accordance with the Appellee's survey. Finding no error, we affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/gilbertm_040110.pdf
This case arises from a boundary line dispute. Appellants appeal the trial court's denial of their petition to reopen proof after the court rendered its decision, establishing the disputed boundary in accordance with the Appellee's survey. Finding no error, we affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/gilbertm_040110.pdf
July 31, 2009
Court examines presumption of ownership under T.C.A. §28-2-110(a)
KINZEL SPRINGS PARTNERSHIP v. HAROLD KING, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2009)
In this action to quiet title, the plaintiff sought the declaration of the true boundary line between the parties, along with an award of the litigation expenses, discretionary costs, and attorneys' fees incurred in protecting the title to the property. Following a bench trial, the court agreed with the property line claimed by the plaintiff. The defendants appeal. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/kinzel_073109.pdf
In this action to quiet title, the plaintiff sought the declaration of the true boundary line between the parties, along with an award of the litigation expenses, discretionary costs, and attorneys' fees incurred in protecting the title to the property. Following a bench trial, the court agreed with the property line claimed by the plaintiff. The defendants appeal. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/kinzel_073109.pdf
August 13, 2008
Conflicting surveys are subject to Court's review of the ambiguous and contradictory evidence supporting them
BART LAY ET AL. v. HOWARD HOLMES ET AL. (Tenn.Ct.App. August 13, 2008).
In this boundary dispute, the trial court had to choose between conflicting surveys. After a trial, the court determined that the survey for the defendants was correct due to the failure of the plaintiffs' surveyor to locate a landmark beech tree. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/layb_081308.pdf
"[This case] contains conflicting evidence, the recollections of elderly members of the community, errors in deeds, deeds describing the property boundaries by who borders the property rather than by landmarks, and boundary descriptions using landmarks such as trees which may or may not exist today." Id.
"The court made a factual determination that the beech tree identified ... was the tree mentioned in the deeds. It is the oldest in the hollow, it is clearly old enough to be the one in the deeds, and it is located near a spring. This is a crucial factual determination that is central to the dispute. ...The spring located near the beech tree was identified by Mitchell Adcock as Boles Spring. While others identified a spring to the north as Boles Spring, the presence of the beech tree by this spring lends much credence to the trial court’s decision that this spring is indeed Boles Spring." Id.
"The second point implicit in the trial court’s endorsement of the Denny survey is that the old fence line upon which the Bradley survey relies is not a boundary. Bradley believed it was a boundary because it ran northward as the Lay deed recited, it had no gates, and it ended up around the area where the boundary agreements came together. The error in the deeds undercuts Bradley’s first reason. Testimony indicated that the fence was built by Mr. Baker, the prior owner of the property, to fence in his goats. This makes sense, in light of the fact that while a steep hollow may deter cows from wandering, steep terrain will not deter a goat. To keep the goats from wandering away up or down the hollow, a fence was a necessity. The fact that the fence ended up around the area where the boundary agreements came together is not a determinative factor. The apparent lack of gates is not determinative either. " Id.
In this boundary dispute, the trial court had to choose between conflicting surveys. After a trial, the court determined that the survey for the defendants was correct due to the failure of the plaintiffs' surveyor to locate a landmark beech tree. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/layb_081308.pdf
"[This case] contains conflicting evidence, the recollections of elderly members of the community, errors in deeds, deeds describing the property boundaries by who borders the property rather than by landmarks, and boundary descriptions using landmarks such as trees which may or may not exist today." Id.
"The court made a factual determination that the beech tree identified ... was the tree mentioned in the deeds. It is the oldest in the hollow, it is clearly old enough to be the one in the deeds, and it is located near a spring. This is a crucial factual determination that is central to the dispute. ...The spring located near the beech tree was identified by Mitchell Adcock as Boles Spring. While others identified a spring to the north as Boles Spring, the presence of the beech tree by this spring lends much credence to the trial court’s decision that this spring is indeed Boles Spring." Id.
"The second point implicit in the trial court’s endorsement of the Denny survey is that the old fence line upon which the Bradley survey relies is not a boundary. Bradley believed it was a boundary because it ran northward as the Lay deed recited, it had no gates, and it ended up around the area where the boundary agreements came together. The error in the deeds undercuts Bradley’s first reason. Testimony indicated that the fence was built by Mr. Baker, the prior owner of the property, to fence in his goats. This makes sense, in light of the fact that while a steep hollow may deter cows from wandering, steep terrain will not deter a goat. To keep the goats from wandering away up or down the hollow, a fence was a necessity. The fact that the fence ended up around the area where the boundary agreements came together is not a determinative factor. The apparent lack of gates is not determinative either. " Id.
March 31, 2008
This opinion discusses several of the ways that courts use to decide which survey is correct
CONNIE R. (DAVIS) PHILLIPS, ET AL., V. LAWRENCE WOODS, ET AL. (Tenn.Ct.App. March 31, 2008).
This appeal involves a dispute over a boundary line and the ownership of a driveway. The plaintiffs, Connie R. (Davis) Phillips and Carol J. (Davis) Miller ("the plaintiffs" or "the Davis heirs"), and the defendants, Lawrence Woods and Charlotte Woods ("the defendants" or "the Woods"), own adjacent tracts of real property in Morgan County. When the initial complaint was filed, the northern tract of property was owned by the plaintiffs' mother, Stella Davis ("Mrs. Davis"), who had filed suit against the Woods, the owners of the southern tract, to quiet title, to establish the common boundary line, and for libel of title. After Mrs. Davis' death prior to trial, her daughters were substituted as plaintiffs.
Upon the conclusion of a bench trial, the trial court found, inter alia, that the Davis heirs owned the property over which the driveway ran, but that the defendants retained an easement by necessity in the roadway, and that the Woods had committed libel of title. While the trial court agreed with the common boundary line described by the surveyor for the Davis heirs, the court reformed the boundary between the parties upon finding that the defendants were entitled to a portion of the Davis property as a result of adversely possessing it for over 30 years. The Woods appeal. We affirm. Case remanded for further proceedings.
Opinion found at TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/phillipsc_033108.pdf
"In determining disputed boundaries, resort is to be had first to natural objects or landmarks, because of their very permanent character; next, to artificial monuments or marks, then to the boundary lines of adjacent landowners, and then to courses and distances. [] This rule of construction is to aid in determining the intention of the parties to a deed which is to be determined, if possible, from the instrument in connection with the surrounding circumstances." Id.(citations omitted; quoting Thornburg v. Chase, 606 S.W.2d 672, 675 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1980)).
"The legal description for Tract 1 of the Davis property also calls for the property described to contain about half an acre. ... The dimensions of Tract 1 as depicted on the Nance survey are much closer to the quantity of land called for by the deed than the dimensions of Tract 1 as depicted on the Steelman survey. The call for the quantity of land in a deed may be resorted to for the purpose of locating and identifying the land in certain circumstances. [] “The boundaries of a tract of land are not usually delineated by the quantity or acreage,” but “where boundaries are in doubt, the quantity may become an important factor.” [] Thus, the fact that the Nance survey more closely produces the quantity of land called for in the deed supports the conclusion that it correctly located Tract 1." Id.(citations omitted).
This appeal involves a dispute over a boundary line and the ownership of a driveway. The plaintiffs, Connie R. (Davis) Phillips and Carol J. (Davis) Miller ("the plaintiffs" or "the Davis heirs"), and the defendants, Lawrence Woods and Charlotte Woods ("the defendants" or "the Woods"), own adjacent tracts of real property in Morgan County. When the initial complaint was filed, the northern tract of property was owned by the plaintiffs' mother, Stella Davis ("Mrs. Davis"), who had filed suit against the Woods, the owners of the southern tract, to quiet title, to establish the common boundary line, and for libel of title. After Mrs. Davis' death prior to trial, her daughters were substituted as plaintiffs.
Upon the conclusion of a bench trial, the trial court found, inter alia, that the Davis heirs owned the property over which the driveway ran, but that the defendants retained an easement by necessity in the roadway, and that the Woods had committed libel of title. While the trial court agreed with the common boundary line described by the surveyor for the Davis heirs, the court reformed the boundary between the parties upon finding that the defendants were entitled to a portion of the Davis property as a result of adversely possessing it for over 30 years. The Woods appeal. We affirm. Case remanded for further proceedings.
Opinion found at TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/phillipsc_033108.pdf
"In determining disputed boundaries, resort is to be had first to natural objects or landmarks, because of their very permanent character; next, to artificial monuments or marks, then to the boundary lines of adjacent landowners, and then to courses and distances. [] This rule of construction is to aid in determining the intention of the parties to a deed which is to be determined, if possible, from the instrument in connection with the surrounding circumstances." Id.(citations omitted; quoting Thornburg v. Chase, 606 S.W.2d 672, 675 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1980)).
"The legal description for Tract 1 of the Davis property also calls for the property described to contain about half an acre. ... The dimensions of Tract 1 as depicted on the Nance survey are much closer to the quantity of land called for by the deed than the dimensions of Tract 1 as depicted on the Steelman survey. The call for the quantity of land in a deed may be resorted to for the purpose of locating and identifying the land in certain circumstances. [] “The boundaries of a tract of land are not usually delineated by the quantity or acreage,” but “where boundaries are in doubt, the quantity may become an important factor.” [] Thus, the fact that the Nance survey more closely produces the quantity of land called for in the deed supports the conclusion that it correctly located Tract 1." Id.(citations omitted).
December 27, 2007
"Virgin" land surveys may trump multiple prior surveys based on the same inaccuracy
RALPH DAVIS, ET AL. v. DANIEL CUEL, ET AL. (Tenn.Ct.App. December 27, 2007).
In this boundary line dispute, Ralph Davis and his wife Jackie Davis ("the Davises") sued Daniel Cuel and Francine Cuel ("the Cuels"), alleging that the Cuels had improperly claimed a portion of the Davises' property as their own. Existing surveys supported the Cuels' claim, but the Davises asserted that a prior agreement gave them the right to an additional 0.42-acre tract ("the southern disputed area") on the Cuels' side of the survey boundary. The Cuels, meanwhile, believed that they were entitled to more land than the existing surveys indicated, so they hired a surveyor, Dave Bruce, to conduct a new survey ("the Bruce survey"). The Bruce survey indicated that the Cuels are entitled not only to the southern disputed area, but also to an additional area north of it ("the northern disputed area"), on what the earlier surveys had regarded as the Davises' side. The Bruce survey further indicated that an additional tract claimed by the Davises, immediately north of the northern disputed area, is actually a county right-of-way.
The trial court adopted the Bruce survey and awarded both the northern and southern disputed areas to the Cuels. As a consequence of this ruling, the Davises, the plaintiffs in this case, actually end up with less land than they started with. They appeal, claiming that the evidence preponderates against the court's factual findings, and also that they should have prevailed on a theory of estoppel or acquiescence. We hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the court's findings, and, even assuming that the Davises did not waive their alternative theories of recovery at trial, the evidence does not support those theories. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/davisr_122707.pdf
"Disregarding the deposition, we find no merit in the Davises’ claim that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings. The Davises note that the Bruce survey contradicts four earlier surveys, including Mr. Crutchfield’s, which all showed the boundary line at the same place. However, as noted earlier, Mr. Bruce testified that his was a “virgin” survey, and the court was entitled to credit it over the prior, non-virgin surveys; the number of previous surveys reaching a contrary conclusion certainly does not create a preponderance where those earlier surveys were, according to testimony that the court was entitled to accept, all built upon one another. Similarly, it is not dispositive that the parties’ own deeds lack any reference to the right-of-way that the Bruce survey defines as the boundary. The testimony indicated that Mr. Bruce relied on documents which pre-dated those deeds, including deeds that preceded them in the chains of title. The court was entitled to believe that the “virgin” Bruce survey, based in part on early deeds and tax maps that Mr. Crutchfield did not consider, more accurately describes the boundary in question than the Crutchfield “retracing” survey does." Id.
In this boundary line dispute, Ralph Davis and his wife Jackie Davis ("the Davises") sued Daniel Cuel and Francine Cuel ("the Cuels"), alleging that the Cuels had improperly claimed a portion of the Davises' property as their own. Existing surveys supported the Cuels' claim, but the Davises asserted that a prior agreement gave them the right to an additional 0.42-acre tract ("the southern disputed area") on the Cuels' side of the survey boundary. The Cuels, meanwhile, believed that they were entitled to more land than the existing surveys indicated, so they hired a surveyor, Dave Bruce, to conduct a new survey ("the Bruce survey"). The Bruce survey indicated that the Cuels are entitled not only to the southern disputed area, but also to an additional area north of it ("the northern disputed area"), on what the earlier surveys had regarded as the Davises' side. The Bruce survey further indicated that an additional tract claimed by the Davises, immediately north of the northern disputed area, is actually a county right-of-way.
The trial court adopted the Bruce survey and awarded both the northern and southern disputed areas to the Cuels. As a consequence of this ruling, the Davises, the plaintiffs in this case, actually end up with less land than they started with. They appeal, claiming that the evidence preponderates against the court's factual findings, and also that they should have prevailed on a theory of estoppel or acquiescence. We hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the court's findings, and, even assuming that the Davises did not waive their alternative theories of recovery at trial, the evidence does not support those theories. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/davisr_122707.pdf
"Disregarding the deposition, we find no merit in the Davises’ claim that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings. The Davises note that the Bruce survey contradicts four earlier surveys, including Mr. Crutchfield’s, which all showed the boundary line at the same place. However, as noted earlier, Mr. Bruce testified that his was a “virgin” survey, and the court was entitled to credit it over the prior, non-virgin surveys; the number of previous surveys reaching a contrary conclusion certainly does not create a preponderance where those earlier surveys were, according to testimony that the court was entitled to accept, all built upon one another. Similarly, it is not dispositive that the parties’ own deeds lack any reference to the right-of-way that the Bruce survey defines as the boundary. The testimony indicated that Mr. Bruce relied on documents which pre-dated those deeds, including deeds that preceded them in the chains of title. The court was entitled to believe that the “virgin” Bruce survey, based in part on early deeds and tax maps that Mr. Crutchfield did not consider, more accurately describes the boundary in question than the Crutchfield “retracing” survey does." Id.
November 30, 2007
Court disregards two licensed surveyors, two fences, and an iron boundary marker in boundary line dispute.
JAMES O. OVERTON, ET AL. v. TERRY L. DAVIS, ET AL. (Tenn.Ct.App. November 29, 2007).
Landowners brought action against adjacent neighbors to establish boundary line. Following a bench trial, the court held that each side is entitled to approximately half of the disputed area. Landowners appeal from the trial court’s resolution of the boundary dispute. The neighbors agree with landowners’ assertion that the evidence does not support the line found by the trial court. The judgment of the trial court is vacated. This case is remanded for further proceedings.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/overtonj_112907.pdf
"The construction of deeds and other instruments and documents and their legal effect as to boundaries is a question of law. What boundaries the grant or deed refers to is a question of law; where those boundaries are located on the face of the earth is a question of fact. If, therefore, the evidence concerning the location of the true boundary line between adjacent owners is conflicting, that issue is one of fact unless the legal construction of the deed or grant is such that the boundary is determined as a matter of law." Id. (citing 12 Am. Jur.2d Boundaries § 121 at 515 (1997) (footnotes omitted); see also Mitchell v. Chance, 149 S.W.3d 40, 45 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
Landowners brought action against adjacent neighbors to establish boundary line. Following a bench trial, the court held that each side is entitled to approximately half of the disputed area. Landowners appeal from the trial court’s resolution of the boundary dispute. The neighbors agree with landowners’ assertion that the evidence does not support the line found by the trial court. The judgment of the trial court is vacated. This case is remanded for further proceedings.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/overtonj_112907.pdf
"The construction of deeds and other instruments and documents and their legal effect as to boundaries is a question of law. What boundaries the grant or deed refers to is a question of law; where those boundaries are located on the face of the earth is a question of fact. If, therefore, the evidence concerning the location of the true boundary line between adjacent owners is conflicting, that issue is one of fact unless the legal construction of the deed or grant is such that the boundary is determined as a matter of law." Id. (citing 12 Am. Jur.2d Boundaries § 121 at 515 (1997) (footnotes omitted); see also Mitchell v. Chance, 149 S.W.3d 40, 45 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
August 17, 2007
Boundary dispute over easements
CRAIG GREEN v. MORGAN HINES (Tenn.Ct.App. May 29, 2007)
Appellant and cross-plaintiff appeals the trial court's order which, among other things, granted an easement across the appellant's property. The record contains no statement of the evidence or transcript of the proceedings; therefore, the trial court's findings of fact are presumed to be correct. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/greenc_081607.pdf
Appellant and cross-plaintiff appeals the trial court's order which, among other things, granted an easement across the appellant's property. The record contains no statement of the evidence or transcript of the proceedings; therefore, the trial court's findings of fact are presumed to be correct. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/greenc_081607.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)