Concept
Property Dispute
Property: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 / Adverse Possession
"I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The plaintiffs instituted this action by filing a complaint on August 25, 1994. The complaint sought to have the defendants enjoined from interfering with the plaintiffs’ intended use of a two-feet-wide tract of land that formed a boundary running between the adjoining properties of the parties. The defendants answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim alleging ownership to the tract of land by adverse possession. The record reveals that the defendants purchased their property by deed dated April 24, 1985. At the time of this land purchase a fence was in place which ran along the rear boundary of defendants’ property. The two-feet-wide tract of land in question here, was enclosed by the fence and visually appeared to be part of the defendants’ property. When the defendants bought their land, they were informed by their real estate agent that their property ran up to and included the fence. The call references in their deed “read” as though the two-feet-wide tract of land was part of the conveyance. 1 The defendants believed the two-feet-wide tract of land was part of their property, and utilized it consistent with ownership rights up until the filing of this law suit. 668 The plaintiffs purchased their property by deed dated April 28, 1989. Shortly before making this purchase, the plaintiffs had a survey of the property done. The survey revealed that the fenced-in two-feet-wide tract of land was part of plaintiffs’ property. 2 Although the plaintiffs were aware at the time of the purchase of their property that the two-feet-wide tract of land was, in fact, theirs, they did nothing to show ownership to the tract until around August, 1994. It was in August of 1994, that the plaintiffs decided to build a road along the two-feet-wide tract of land. To do this meant cutting down several trees that were along the tract. 3 The defendants apparently attempted to prevent the plaintiffs from building the road by asserting that they owned the tract of land. The plaintiffs thereafter instituted the present suit. The trial of this matter was held by the circuit court, sitting as factfinder, on December 13, 1994. The trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, wherein it held that “the defendants have failed to 1 The pertinent call references of defendants’ deed provide: thence leaving the said Willowbrook Road N 71° 28’ E"
Related Ideas
- Deed CallsProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · feet to a
- Proof StandardProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · feet to a
- Evidence ReviewProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · feet to a
- Tacking FindingsProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · The fence … was more likely a
- Burden ProofProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · The fence … was more likely a
- Remand ProcedureProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · The fence … was more likely a
- Objective ActsProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · 1997 Offer-to-Purchase Letter
- RequirementsProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · Such is the case here. Therefore, the 1997 letter was