Giles E. Roberson and wife, Hazel B. Roberson v. Mary Margaret (Darwin) Wasson and Pug Martin, individually and D/B/A Century 21 Pug Martin Realty and Stephen N. Snyder and, Barbara L. Snyder
Opinion
I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN SECTI ON FILED May 6, 1996
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk
) RHEA COUNTY
GI LES E. ROBERSON a nd wi f e ) 03A01- 9509- CH- 00299 HAZEL B. ROBERSON )
)
Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l a nt s )
) )
v. ) HON. J EFFREY F. STEWART, ) CHANCELLOR )
M ARY M ARGARET ( DARW N) I ) W ASSON a nd PUG M ARTI N, ) I n d i v i d u a l l y, a nd d/ b/ a ) CENTURY 21 PUG M ARTI N REALTY ) a n d STEPHEN N. SNYDER a nd ) wi f e , BARBARA L. SNYDER )
)
De f e nda nt s - Appe l l e e s ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED
HOWARD L. UPCHURCH OF PI KEVI LLE FOR APPELLANTS
MATHEW D. BROW ELD a nd J OHN R. ANDERSON OF CHATTANOOGA FOR NFI
APPELLEES STEPHEN N. SNYDER a nd wi f e BARBARA L. SNYDER
O P I N I O N
Godda r d, P. J .
Thi s s ui t wa s f i l e d by Pl a i nt i f f s Gi l e s E. Robe r s on a n d
h i s wi f e Ha z e l B. Robe r s on a ga i ns t De f e nda nt s M r y M r ga r e t a a
( Da r wi n ) W s s on a nd Pug M r t i n, a a i ndi vi dua l l y, a nd d/ b/ a Ce nt u r y
2 1 Pu g M r t i n Re a l t y.
a The Pl a i nt i f f s s ought t o ha ve t he Cour t
d e c l a r e t ha t a s t r i p of l a nd a ppr oxi ma t e l y 18 f e e t i n wi dt h,
t i t l e d i n t he na me of M s . W s s on, whi c h l a y be t we e n t wo s e pa r a t e r a
t r a c t s owne d by t he m ( s e e a ppe ndi x) " t o ha ve be e n a ba ndone d a n d
t o b e n on- e xi s t e nt . " The c ompl a i nt wa s l a t e r a me nde d t o a dva n c e
t h e t h e or y of a dve r s e pos s e s s i on, a nd s t i l l l a t e r t o a dd a s
p a r t i e s De f e nda nt St e phe n N. Snyde r a nd wi f e Ba r ba r a L. Snyde r ,
wh o h a d pur c ha s e d t he pr ope r t y f r om M s . W s s on.
r a
The Tr i a l Cour t gr a nt e d a s umma r y j udgme nt i n f a vor o f
t h e De f e nda nt s a s t o t he a dve r s e pos s e s s i on t he or y a nd a t t he
c o n c l u s i on of t he Pl a i nt i f f s ' pr oof s us t a i ne d t he De f e nda nt s '
mo t i o n t o gr a nt a j udgme nt i n t he i r f a vor , whi c h a t t ha t poi nt
wa s p r e di c a t e d onl y upon t he a ba ndonme nt t he or y.
The Pl a i nt i f f s a ppe a l i ns i s t i ng t ha t t he Tr i a l Cour t
wa s i n e r r or i n gr a nt i ng s umma r y j udgme nt be c a us e t he r e i s a
d i s p u t e of ma t e r i a l f a c t s , a nd i n l a t e r di s mi s s i ng t he i r s ui t
b e c a u s e t he e vi de nc e pr e ponde r a t e s a ga i ns t hi s f i ndi ngs .
As t o t he i s s ue s r a i s e d, we a r e de a l i ng wi t h t wo
s e p a r a t e s t a nda r ds of r e vi e w. I n r e vi e wi ng t he a c t i on of t he
Tr i a l Cour t i n gr a nt i ng s u mma r y j udgme nt , we a r e r e qui r e d t o t a k e
t h e s t r onge s t l e gi t i ma t e v i e w of a l l t he e vi de nc e i n f a vor of t h e
1 M s. r W s s o n c o n t r a c t e d wi t h M .
a s M r t i n t o sel l a her pr ope r t y.
n o n - mo v i ng pa r t i e s a nd t o i ndul ge a l l r e a s ona bl e i nf e r e nc e s i n
t h e i r f a vor . Byr d v. Ha l l , 847 S. W 2d 208 ( Te nn. 1993) .
.
The Supr e me Cour t , i n Ci t y of Col umbi a v. C. F. W Cons t .
.
Co. , 5 5 7 S. W 2d 734, 740 ( Te nn. 1977) , a r t i c ul a t e s t he s t a nda r d t o .
b e u s e d i n non- j ur y c a s e s f or di s mi s s a l a t t he c onc l us i on of t h e
p l a i n t i f f ' s pr oof , whi c h we e qua t e wi t h a mot i on f or j udgme nt i n
d e c l a r a t or y j udgme nt c a s e s , a nd di s t i ngui s he s t ha t s t a nda r d f r o m
t h e o n e t o be us e d i n j ur y c a s e s :
M i ons f or di s mi s s a l i n non- j ur y c a s e s unde r Rul e ot
4 1 . 02( 2) , Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e , a nd mo t i ons f or di r e c t e d ve r di c t s i n j ur y c a s e s unde r Rul e 5 0 , Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e , a r e s ome wha t s i mi l a r , b ut , t he r e i s a f unda me nt a l di f f e r e nc e be t we e n t he t wo mot i ons , i n t ha t , i n t he j ur y c a s e , t h e j udge i s not t he t r i e r of f a c t s whi l e i n t he non- j ur y c a s e he i s t he t r i e r o f t he f a c t s . I n t he j ur y c a s e he mus t c o ns i de r t he e vi de nc e mos t f a vor a bl y f or t he pl a i nt i f f , a l l ow a l l r e a s ona bl e i nf e r e nc e s i n pl a i nt i f f ' s f a vor a n d di s r e ga r d a l l c ount e r a c t i ng e vi de nc e , a nd, s o c ons i de r e d, i f t he r e i s a ny ma t e r i a l e vi de nc e t o s u ppor t a ve r di c t f or pl a i nt i f f , he mus t de ny t he mo t i on. But i n t he non- j ur y c a s e , whe n a mot i on t o d i s mi s s i s ma de a t t h e c l os e of pl a i nt i f f ' s c a s e unde r Ru l e 4 1. 0 2( 2) , t h e t r i a l j udge mus t i mpa r t i a l l y we i gh a nd e va l ua t e t he e vi d e nc e i n t he s a me ma nne r a s t hough h e we r e ma ki ng f i ndi ngs of f a c t a t t he c onc l us i on of a l l of t he e vi de nc e f or bot h pa r t i e s , de t e r mi ne t he f a c t s o f t he c a s e , a ppl y t he l a w t o t hos e f a c t s , a nd, i f t he pl a i nt i f f ' s c a s e ha s not be e n ma de out by a p r e ponde r a nc e of t he e vi de nc e , a j udgme nt ma y be r e nde r e d a ga i ns t t he pl a i nt i f f on t he me r i t s , o r , t h e t r i a l j udge , i n h i s di s c r e t i on, ma y de c l i ne t o r e nde r j u dgme nt unt i l t he c l os e of a l l t he e vi de nc e . The a c t i on s houl d be di s mi s s e d i f on t he f a c t s f ound a nd t h e a ppl i c a bl e l a w t he pl a i nt i f f ha s s hown no r i ght t o r el i ef .
The Tr i a l Cour t , i n gr a nt i ng a s umma r y j udgme nt a s t o
t h e t h e or y of a dve r s e pos s e s s i on, s t a t e d t he f ol l owi ng:
The Cour t i s of t he opi ni on t ha t a pa r t i a l Summa r y J u dgme nt s houl d be gr a nt e d i n f a vor of t he De f e nda nt , St e phe n N. a nd Ba r ba r a Snyde r on t he i s s ue of a dve r s e p o s s e s s i on. The i s s u e of a dve r s e pos s e s s i on woul d r e qui r e t he Pl a i nt i f f s t o e s t a bl i s h t ha t ove r t he ye a r s t h e y ha ve by ope n, hos t i l e a nd not or i ous us e of t he p r ope r t y i n que s t i on pos s e s s e d i t t o t he e xc l us i on of t h e r i ght f ul owne r . The Pl a i nt i f f s c a nnot a s s e r t a s a ma t t e r o f l a w t o h a ve c ol or of t i t l e t o t he s t r i p of l a nd i n que s t i on. The i r de e d s pe c i f i c a l l y r e f e r r e d t o t h e i r pr ope r t y l i ne s be i ng bounde d by a " pr i va t e l a ne " wh i c h i s a l s o t he s t r i p of l a nd i n que s t i on i n t hi s case. Fur t he r , t he De f e nda nt s a nd t he i r pr e de c e s s or s - i n - t i t l e t hr ough t he va r i ous de e ds of c onve ya nc e , g r a nt e d t he us e of s a i d s t r i p of l a nd t o t he Pl a i nt i f f s a n d t he i r pr e de c e s s or s - i n- t i t l e . Thi s gr a nt of t he us e o f t hi s s t r i p o f l a nd t o t he Pl a i nt i f f s a nd t he i r p r e de c e s s or - i n- t i t l e woul d de f e a t a c l a i m t o a dve r s e p o s s e s s i on i n a nd of i t s e l f . None of t he gr a nt s a l l owi ng t he us e i n a nywa y pl a c e s a r e s t r i c t i on on t he u s e , ot he r t ha n t o s a y i t c a nnot be a n e xc l us i ve us e a n d t he s t r i p of l a nd i s t he r e f or t he be ne f i t of t he Pl a i nt i f f a nd ot he r l a nd owne r s s e r vi c e d by t he s t r i p o f l a nd.
No e vi de nc e wa s i nt r oduc e d by t he Pl a i nt i f f s t o
c o n t r a d i c t t he Tr i a l Cour t ' s f i ndi ngs of f a c t , whi c h a r e
s u p p o r t e d by e vi de nc e i nt r oduc e d by t he De f e nda nt s .
Af t e r a he a r i ng a s t o t he a ba ndonme nt t he or y, t he Tr i a l
Co u r t g r a nt e d t he De f e nda nt s ' mot i on f or j udgme nt a t t he
c o n c l u s i on of t he Pl a i nt i f f s ' pr oof be c a us e i t " ha d not r i s e n t o
t h e s t a nda r d t ha t i s r e qui r e d by c l e a r or c onvi nc i ng pr oof of a n
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Giles E. Roberson and wife, Hazel B. Roberson v. Mary Margaret (Darwin) Wasson and Pug Martin, individually and D/B/A Century 21 Pug Martin Realty and Stephen N. Snyder and, Barbara L. Snyder (Giles E. Roberson and wife, Hazel B. Roberson v. Mary Margaret (Darwin) Wasson and Pug Martin, individually and D/B/A Century 21 Pug Martin Realty and Stephen N. Snyder and, Barbara L. Snyder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.