Quick Summary
In Brown (plaintiff) v. Gobble (defendant), a dispute arose over a two-foot-wide tract of land between neighboring properties in West Virginia. The Gobbles claimed ownership through adverse possession and sought to establish this by tacking on their predecessors’ possession time.
The Circuit Court ruled in favor of the Brown’s, but upon appeal, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for further consideration of evidence related to tacking and adverse possession.
Facts of the Case
The plaintiffs and defendants owned adjoining properties with a two-foot-wide tract of land separating them. Based on information from their real estate agent and the call references in their deed, the defendants purchased their property in 1985 and believed that the two-foot-wide tract was part of their property. The plaintiffs purchased their property in 1989 and had a survey done, which revealed that the two-foot-wide tract belonged to them. In 1994, the plaintiffs decided to build a road along the tract, leading to a dispute with the defendants over ownership.
Procedural Posture and History
- The Browns filed a suit against the Gobbles to prevent them from interfering with their two-foot-wide tract of land.
- The Gobbles counterclaimed, asserting ownership through adverse possession.
- The Circuit Court of Mercer County found in favor of the Browns.
- The Gobbles appealed the decision to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether the Gobbles established ownership of the disputed two-foot-wide tract of land through adverse possession, including the validity of ‘tacking’ previous owners’ possession time to their own.
Rule of Law
Adverse possession requires clear and convincing evidence that the possessor has held the land adversely or hostilely, with actual possession, openly and notoriously, exclusively, continuously, and under a claim of title or color of title for the requisite statutory period.
Reasoning and Analysis
The defendants claimed ownership of the two-foot-wide tract through adverse possession by tacking on the periods of possession by their predecessors in title. They presented evidence showing that their predecessors enclosed, maintained, and claimed ownership of the tract.
However, the trial court found that the evidence did not establish tacking or adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence. While the defendants’ evidence appeared to support the elements of adverse possession, the trial court’s findings did not adequately address their tacking claim.
Conclusion
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case, finding that the Circuit Court did not sufficiently consider all evidence related to tacking and adverse possession. The case was sent back for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion.
Relevant FAQs of this case
How does 'tacking' apply to adverse possession?
Tacking allows successive land possessors to combine their periods to meet adverse possession requirements. For instance, if Owner A possessed land for 5 years, and then Owner B possessed it for 7 years, they can “tack” their periods to fulfill the 10-year requirement, creating a continuous 12-year possession.
What factors are crucial in an adverse possession claim?
Key factors in adverse possession claims include continuous possession, open use, hostile occupation, and meeting the statutory time requirement. For example, uninterrupted use of a disputed land for 10 years, without the owner’s permission, is vital to establish a claim.
Can multiple owners combine possession periods through tacking?
Yes, multiple owners can combine their possession periods through tacking. For example, if one owner occupies land for 3 years and then another owner occupies it for 7 years, their combined possession equals the required 10 years for an adverse possession claim.
References
Was this case brief helpful?