Claude Martin v. Sherman Asher

Opinion

RENDERED: AUGUST 28, 2026; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2025-CA-1447-MR

CLAUDE MARTIN APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM CLAY CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE OSCAR G. HOUSE, JUDGE ACTION NO. 21-CI-00118

SHERMAN ASHER AND BOYD ASHER APPELLEES

OPINION

AFFIRMING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: COMBS, EASTON, AND L. JONES, JUDGES. COMBS, JUDGE: This is a property dispute between adjoining landowners in Clay County, Kentucky. After our review, we affirm the judgment.

In June 2021, Sherman Asher and Boyd Asher filed a complaint against Claude Martin in Clay Circuit Court. The Ashers sought to quiet title to property which they claimed to own either through valid deed transfer or by

2

adverse possession. Martin filed a counterclaim in which he averred that he owned the disputed property through valid deed transfer -- including affidavits of descent. Discovery proceeded, and a bench trial was conducted in October 2025.

Following the presentation of evidence, the trial court found that Boyd Asher had been deeded the disputed property in June 2000 by: Betty Davidson and her husband; Lora Childers Gibson; and Kenneth Ray Childers. Boyd Asher put a mobile home upon the property in 2004. The court found that Boyd Asher mortgaged the disputed real property to finance the purchase of the mobile home and that the mobile home had always remained in its original location. The mortgage is dated September 2, 2004, and the mobile home’s title reflects a lien filed September 16, 2004. The court found that Boyd Asher cleared the disputed property; built a shed upon it; fenced it; kept a horse upon it; and raised a garden there every year. Boyd also built a driveway to his mobile home from the adjoining county road. The court was persuaded from the evidence that a walnut tree and distinct tree line marked the boundary between Boyd Asher’s property and Martin’s adjoining property.

By deed dated February 8, 2021, Boyd Asher conveyed the property to Sherman Asher, his brother. The court found that Sherman Asher resided at the mobile home located on the disputed property ever since the date of that conveyance.

3

The court recounted Martin’s testimony indicating that he acquired title to the disputed property in 2004 after his uncle’s will was probated. Martin acknowledged that he was aware that Boyd Asher put a mobile home on the property, but Martin indicated that that placement did not occur until 2005 or 2006. The court was persuaded by Martin’s testimony indicating that he (Martin) never gave Boyd Asher permission to put the mobile home on the property and that after he (Martin) had the property surveyed in 2021, he began demanding rent from Sherman Asher.

The court concluded that the Ashers established title to the disputed property by deed. Alternatively, it concluded that the Ashers proved -- through clear and convincing evidence -- that they possessed the property openly, exclusively, continually, and adversely to any claim by Martin for the statutory period prescribing ownership by adverse possession. In its judgment, the court held that Martin had no right, title, or interest in the property, the mobile home, or the driveway of Sherman Asher and that Asher’s property extended to the walnut tree and the tree line behind his mobile home. This appeal followed.

In actions tried upon the facts without a jury, we review the court’s findings under the clearly erroneous standard set forth in the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR). Keeney v. Keeney, 223 S.W.3d 843, 848 (Ky. App. 2007) (citing Largent v. Largent, 643 S.W.2d 261, 263 (Ky. 1982)). CR 52.01 provides

4

that findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous and that due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. However, with regard to the trial court’s application of law to those facts, we conduct a de novo review. Id.

Martin contends that the trial court erred by finding that he never gave Boyd Asher permission to move the mobile home onto the property and that he failed to act to retake the property until after it was surveyed in 2021. Counsel refers us to Martin’s trial testimony.

Some of Martin’s testimony appears disordered. Nevertheless, he did indicate to the court that he “definitely” did not give either of the Ashers permission to put a mobile home on the disputed property -- as his counsel acknowledges in his brief. Furthermore, under the circumstances (including the lack of testimony from the surveyor), the trial court was free to reject the results of the survey and other parts of Martin’s testimony as lacking credibility. Because the circuit court’s findings of fact were adequately supported by the evidence, they were not clearly erroneous.

Next, Martin challenges the circuit court’s conclusions of law.

Counsel contends that Martin’s testimony indicates that the Ashers resided at the property with his permission until 2008. He argues that where the Ashers occupied the premises with Martin’s permission, the Ashers could not, as a matter of law,

5

establish adverse possession. However, as explained above, the trial court wholly rejected Martin’s testimony. The court concluded that the Ashers had not only established title to the property by deed but also that they had occupied the disputed property without permission or objection by anyone for a period of more than fifteen years. The trial court did not err by concluding from the evidence that regardless of Martin’s claim of record ownership, the Ashers possessed it adversely to him for the requisite statutory period.

We affirm the order of the Clay Circuit Court.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

William Jacob Roberts John T. Aubrey Manchester, Kentucky Mariah J. Aubrey Manchester, Kentucky