Facts
Scarborough and Rollins were owners of adjoining land parcels .According to Rollin’s, she believed that she owned a share of ``a gravel road” that was situated along the south in relation to her apartments. On the other hand, Scarborough also believed that he owned the same share of the said gravel road that was situated north of his properties (Miller, 547).
In the year 2006, Scarborough instituted a suit to facilitate the confirmation that the share of the gravel road belonged to him and that he should be awarded ``quiet” enjoyment of the same. Rollins on the hand ``filed” a counterclaim and claimed possession of he said portion via ``adverse possession” doctrine (547).
The case had arose due to the acts of Scarborough whereby he had obtained culverts owned by Rollins for personal use and failed to return them .The acts by Scarborough amounted trespass as per torts law provisions. Scarborough had trespassed on the premises of Rollins and obtained her Culverts without her permission. Rollins claimed that she owned the Culverts but Scarborough claimed that he owned the grave road portion where the culverts had been installed. Rollins then instituted a suit so as to claim the culverts as well as the legal fees and Culverts installation costs (547).
The court ruled in Rollin’s favor and Scarborough appealed. However, the appellate court in Mississippi further ruled for Rollins.
Issue
Did Rollins prove her ownership of the ``portion” of gravel road via the doctrine of ``adverse possession”?
Decision
The courts ruled for Rollins .The court’s reasoning was that the evidence tendered by Scarborough failed to prove that he indeed owned the ``portion” of the gravel road.
Reasoning
The court analyzed the evidence presented by Rollins and Scarborough prior to making its ruling. Scarborough hired a surveyor who acted as his witness during the appeal hearing. The court noted that the surveyor’s initial report did not match the description of the disputed boundary. However, the surveyor presented two other reports describing the potential location of the disputed boundary. The court noted that the surveyor was not a credential witness because he did not establish the boundary which was the cause of dispute in this matter.
Further, the argument by Scarborough that the part of the gravel road was abandoned and that he and Rollins used the portion jointly was dismissed by the court. Scarborough failed to present evidence to support his claims thus he was held liable for taking the culverts installed by Rollins.
Rollins on the other hand presented evidence to show that her previous owner had been using the disputed piece of land with her neighbors without disputes until Scarborough purchased the properties. In addition, Rollins, presented witnesses who showed that no one has ever instated a suit claiming the said portion of the ``gravel road” for the last “thirty five years”. The witnesses confirmed that it was a well known fact that the apartments owned by Rollins owned the ``portion “of the gravel land that Scarborough was claiming.
Further, Rollins presented evidence to show that her employees were responsible for the maintenance of the gravel road ``portion” and that she paid the relevant taxes to the state. To conclude Rollins, key witness, John Black a son of the previous owner testified that his family owned the disputed portion since he was a young boy.
The court cited Broadus v Hickman and held that it was satisfied that Rollins owned the disputed piece of the gravel via adverse possession and ruled in her favor.
Conclusion
The ruling in this case was just. Rollins and her neighbors had enjoyed the disputed potion of the gravel land prior to the arrival of Scarborough as an owner of the adjacent properties .Additionally, people knew that the apartments owned by Rollins owned the ``portion” of the gravel road thus Scarborough should not have disputed the said land portion.
Work Cited
Miller, Roger. Cengage Advantage Books: Fundamentals of Business Law. Summarized
Cases. USA: Cengage learning, 2012 .Print.
