Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Albert Freeman’s parents conveyed 48.5 acres to Cherokee Water Company in 1948. After his parents’ death, Freeman has been engaged in several disputes with Cherokee over the property. In this case, Freeman demanded possession of a small piece of land adjacent to Lake Cherokee, called “Park A Lot.” Freeman claimed the property was his by way of adverse possession, since he and his family had used it for a variety of purposes for decades. In a jury trial, the jury found that Freeman had adversely possessed Park A Lot for over 10 years, and that because of Freeman’s actions, Cherokee was presumed to have notice of the adverse possession. On appeal, Cherokee raises four primary arguments. First, he says Freeman’s lawsuit was barred by res judicata in that a prior judgment disposed of the ownership of the land. In the earlier dispute, there was a judgment that Cherokee owned title to all of the land conveyed by Freeman’s parents in 1948. The deed for that 48.5-acre tract includes the Park A Lot tract, so Cherokee says the issue of ownership has been established so that Freeman cannot now claim that he adversely possessed the parcel. The trial court in this action refused to grant Cherokee a J.N.O.V. on this issue. Cherokee’s second point is that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the verdict. Cherokee also argues that Freeman did not repudiate Cherokee’s ownership of the tract, and that the description of the property in the judgment is insufficient. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court takes note of Freeman’s response to Cherokee’s first argument, which points out: 1. that a fact issue exists regarding conflicting testimony as to whether Park A Lot is actually inside the 48.5 acres (no findings were requested or made on the matter); 2. that Park A Lot is not referenced by the prior judgment; and 3. that Freeman’s attorney in that lawsuit had told Freeman he had the right to use that area after the judgment in the prior suit. The court concludes that the evidence is not conclusive, and as such, it cannot say that the trial court erred by refusing to render a J.N.O.V. for Cherokee. Nor did the trial court err by overruling Cherokee’s objection to the adverse possession jury instruction based on the contention. The court adds that the prior lawsuit orders legal title vested in Cherokee to all the land conveyed pursuant to the 1948 deed, including but not limited to Lots SR-51, SR-52, and SR-53. The prior judgment does not specifically determine that Park A Lot is included in the 48.5 acres conveyed to Cherokee. Therefore, that issue was not actually litigated in the prior case. The court also finds that the prior litigation did not arise from the same subject matter, either. While Park A Lot is an adjoining tract to SR-53, Park A Lot is designated on the plat as a separate parcel of real estate. It is clear that the rights of the parties to Park A Lot were not adjudicated in the prior action. The jury in this case did not find that the 48.5 acres included Park A Lot. Because the court found that the evidence does not establish as a matter of law that Park A Lot is a part of the 48.5 acres, the court finds that the prior ruling’s judgment on Cherokee’s ownership of the 48.5 does not adjudicate the ownership of Park A Lot. “We find that Park A Lot is a separate and distinct parcel of real estate from Lots SR-51, SR-52, and SR-53 and as such it does not involve the same subject matter as the previous litigation. Therefore, res judicata does not preclude Freeman from asserting his adverse possession claim to Park A Lot.” Reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the court takes note that the question before the jury was whether, in light of a limited right of access Freeman had to use the property � to which Cherokee admitted � Freeman acted in a manner that otherwise adversely possessed the property for all purposes. The limited right Freeman had does not mean that he could not have adversely possessed the property, but it does mean that he needed to show possession beyond that which was allowed. The court does find such evidence, including a canal dug by Freeman’s father; Freeman’s family’s regular maintenance of the area; the fact that Freeman moved a mobile home onto the property; the fact that Freeman was known to the lake patrol as living on the land; and the fact that Freeman and others were aware of Freeman’s garden plot lease on the property. The court also finds that while the Freemans tried to keep Cherokee off the property, Cherokee did not actually take possession of the property until after Freeman initiated this suit. Addressing Cherokee’s point that Freeman never repudiated Cherokee’s title once Freeman was allowed by permission to enter the property, the court holds that because it cannot be determined as a matter of law that Park A Lot is a part of the 48.5-acre tract in which the fishing permission was reserved, it has not been established that this is a tract for which permission was given for fishing on the lake. Without that determination, it was not necessary for Freeman to repudiate Cherokee’s title. Finally, turning to the description of the property in the judgment, the court observes that the trial court’s judgment describes the property in relation to a plat. The court rejects Cherokee’s contention that this is insufficient. While the trial court’s judgment fails to provide a written metes-and-bounds description of the property, the judgment does identify the property specifically as set out in the map. The map and plat attached to the judgment, in combination with the court’s specific reference to that map, is sufficient to identify the disputed property with reasonable certainty so that it may be located on the ground. OPINION:Carter, J.; Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.