An appeal was made to the Tennessee Court of Appeals concerning a case where Mary Jane Bridgewater sought to quiet title to thirty acres of property, which she claims against neighbors Robert and Tracy Adamczyk. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Bridgewater, but the defendants contested this, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The appellate court agreed with the defendants, reversing the trial court's judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings.
Bridgewater's complaint asserts her ownership of the thirty acres, which she claims was wrongfully claimed by the Adamczyks. The Adamczyks countered by asserting their ownership and categorized the dispute as an ejectment action, requiring Bridgewater to prove both legal title and immediate possession. The property in question was purchased by the Adamczyks in 1998, adjacent to Bridgewater's land, which she claims comes from an 1876 deed. The contested tract's title is based on Bridgewater’s 2007 Affidavit of Heirship, stating she inherited it through intestate succession from her ancestors, with the last deed in her chain being a handwritten 1884 deed. The Adamczyks dispute her claim to this tract, leading to the legal action initiated by Bridgewater in 2002 after they asserted ownership.
A tract of approximately 130 acres, originating from an 1876 deed from Nancy Miller to Ed Miller, is at the center of this legal dispute. Ms. Bridgewater claims the land traces back to an 1818 land grant to Colonel Martin Miller for military service. The Adamczyks filed a counter-complaint on July 29, 2002, asserting their ownership and later sought partial summary judgment in March 2004, which was denied by the trial court in October 2004. Following an agreed order in November 2004, the Adamczyks filed a third-party complaint against Mike Gibbs and Scotty Green for breach of covenants, conditional on Ms. Bridgewater being deemed the true owner.
In subsequent proceedings, both parties filed motions for summary judgment, with the Adamczyks arguing for ejectment due to Ms. Bridgewater's alleged non-payment of property taxes for twenty years, while Ms. Bridgewater claimed the case was to quiet title. The trial court, on April 12, 2007, denied the Adamczyks' motion and granted summary judgment to Ms. Bridgewater, determining she held fee simple absolute ownership based on the 1884 deed from Bradley to Miller. The court found the Adamczyks failed to prove continuous tax payments for twenty years and had actual and constructive notice regarding property boundaries.
Following further motions and a trial court ruling on May 4, 2009, granting Ms. Bridgewater possession of the property, an amended order in June 2009 treated the earlier summary judgment as final, despite pending claims against the third-party defendants. The case has proceeded to appeal.
The Adamczyks contest the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Ms. Bridgewater regarding her claim to quiet title to a disputed property, asserting that material facts remain unresolved and that the court wrongly placed the burden of proof on them. The appellate court concludes that Ms. Bridgewater’s evidence was insufficient to shift the burden of persuasion, indicating the summary judgment should have been denied without assessing the Adamczyks' opposing evidence. The court emphasizes that summary judgment does not enjoy a presumption of correctness on appeal and that such decisions are reviewed as questions of law under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56. Ms. Bridgewater, as the moving party, must demonstrate that no genuine issues of material fact exist to be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In support of her motion, she submitted an 1884 deed conveying property to Ed Miller, a deposition from Carroll Carman, a survey, and an Affidavit of Heirship. Carman's deposition indicated that if the 1884 deed is shown to be a predecessor title to Bridgewater, the disputed area would belong to her. However, it remains unproven whether Bridgewater inherited the property from the Bradleys, which is essential to establish her claim.
The Adamczyks argue that Ms. Bridgewater’s affidavit is inadmissible due to a lack of personal knowledge regarding its material statements. Under Tennessee law, specifically Tennessee Code Annotated § 30-2-712, affidavits of heirship must be based on the personal knowledge of the affiant and detail the relationships of heirs to the deceased. Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.06 further stipulates that affidavits supporting summary judgment motions must be grounded in personal knowledge and include facts admissible as evidence. Personal knowledge is defined as direct observation or experience, not hearsay or belief. Previous Tennessee cases have rejected affidavits lacking personal knowledge or containing hearsay.
Ms. Bridgewater’s affidavit states she is the only child of Kate Lee Bowman Bridgewater and outlines the property ownership history, but it provides insufficient detail to demonstrate her personal knowledge of key events, such as how she knew Ed Miller died intestate in 1902, or how the property passed through generations. Furthermore, she does not reference any historical documents, such as a family bible, that could support her claims. Consequently, her affidavit does not meet the requirements to establish her status as an heir to the property acquired by Ed Miller from the Bradleys in 1884.
Ms. Bridgewater’s Affidavit of Heirship is deemed insufficient for summary judgment under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 due to its reliance on hearsay and conclusions. As the moving party, she bears the burden of proving that no genuine issues of material fact exist and that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Adamczyks have challenged the validity of her affidavit, asserting they have legal claims against her property rights. According to Tennessee Code Annotated 30-2-712(e)(1), the burden of proof lies with the affiant to substantiate the claims in the affidavit. Additionally, the Adamczyks argue that Ms. Bridgewater’s action is one of ejectment rather than quiet title, which requires her to show both legal title and immediate possession of the property in question. The court has opted not to classify the action definitively at this stage and has remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Consequently, the summary judgment previously granted to Ms. Bridgewater has been reversed, and the case is remanded with costs of appeal assigned to her.
