Dale Anthony Scott v. Marion Yarbro

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2008-00090-COA-R3-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; October 15, 2008; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case involves a protracted legal dispute concerning the ownership of three parcels of real property in Decatur County, Tennessee, held by tenants-in-common. This is the third appeal following the dismissal of two previous appeals due to lack of jurisdiction, as the trial court's orders were not final judgments. The Plaintiffs/Appellants, Dale Anthony Scott and others, assert ownership through three legal theories: title by prescription, title by adverse possession, and title via payment of property taxes, as outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 28-2-109 and 29-2-110. The court found that the Plaintiffs/Appellants did not meet their burden of proof for any of these claims, leading to the affirmation of the Chancery Court's judgment.

The facts indicate that Dover Scott, the decedent, inherited a one-sixth interest in the property and later purchased additional interests from relatives, ultimately passing away in 1999. His four sons, the Plaintiffs/Appellants, inherited his interests and claimed title to the entire Farm, which includes a 1.2-acre tract, a 3.1-acre tract, and a 188-acre tract. Other relatives, referred to as Defendants or Appellees, also assert their ownership interests. The evidence presented shows that from 1953 until his death, the decedent lived on and managed the Farm, paying taxes and making improvements without contributions from other co-tenants. A complaint was filed by the decedent's children in 2002 against the co-tenants for alleged trespassing, leading to the current appeal. The court's opinion was delivered by Judge J. Steven Stafford, with Judges David R. Farmer and Holly M. Kirby concurring.

Decedent's Children claimed title to the Farm through adverse possession under Tennessee Code sections 28-2-101 et seq. and asserted that co-tenants' failure to pay property taxes supported their claim under sections 28-2-109 and 28-2-110. The co-tenants responded with counterclaims and cross-claims seeking partition of the property under sections 29-27-101 and 29-27-201. Each party submitted a “Memorandum of Law,” where the Decedent's Children also argued ownership based on common law prescription. 

Prior to the appeal, the trial court ruled that the Decedent's Children established an ouster for two smaller tracts but not for the 188-acre tract, ordering the latter's sale for partition. They appealed, seeking a determination on their title claims. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting the original decree was not final and that the court had not addressed the common law prescription theory or made necessary findings on the 188-acre tract.

After remand, the trial court issued a “Supplemental Final Decree” but the appellate court found it still did not resolve the prescription issue, leading to another remand. Ultimately, a third decree confirmed there was no evidence that Dover Scott occupied the property without permission from co-tenants, and thus the Decedent's Children failed to meet the necessary elements for establishing title by prescription, including a lack of proof regarding any disability that would prevent co-tenants from asserting their rights.

The Plaintiffs did not meet the necessary elements to establish a claim for title by prescription, resulting in a Final Judgment under Tennessee Rule 54.02, with the court stating there is no just reason for delay. Dover Scott's children have appealed this final decree, raising two main issues: (1) whether they acquired title to the property's remaining interest by prescription or adverse possession, and (2) whether they secured title through Tennessee Code Annotated (T.C.A.) sections 28-2-110 and 28-2-109. The appellate court will review the case de novo, presuming the trial court's factual findings are correct, and will uphold these findings unless the evidence significantly contradicts them.

The court emphasizes that the trial judge is better positioned to assess witness credibility due to direct observation. The appeal focuses solely on ownership of a specific 188-acre tract, with the children claiming title through three theories: title by prescription, title by adverse possession, and statutory title under T.C.A. 28-2-109 and 28-2-110. The doctrine of title by prescription, as discussed in previous cases, requires proof of long-term, uninterrupted enjoyment of the property. Tennessee law recognizes that exclusive possession for a significant period, generally twenty years, can serve as evidence of title, presuming necessary legal actions such as a release or ouster by co-tenants.

In Tennessee, possession of property must be undisturbed for twenty years to establish a prescriptive title, which carries the same weight as an actual grant. A plaintiff can create a presumption of title by demonstrating long-continued use and enjoyment of the property. This presumption is rooted in public policy to quiet title, rather than the existence of a prior grant. However, the presumption can be rebutted if possession was permissive among co-tenants or if any co-tenant was under a disability, such as minority, during the twenty-year period. Establishing prescriptive title among co-tenants requires proving two essential elements: 1) exclusive and uninterrupted possession of the property for over twenty years, claimed as one’s own without accounting to co-tenants, and 2) that no co-tenants were under a disability to assert their rights. Failure to prove either element negates the applicability of the doctrine. In the evaluated case, evidence indicated that Dover Scott did not claim full ownership of the disputed property and lacked proof of exclusive possession or the absence of disabilities among co-tenants, leading to the conclusion that his children could not establish ownership by prescription of the 188-acre tract.

To establish title by adverse possession in Tennessee, a claimant must demonstrate open, actual, continuous, exclusive, adverse, and notorious occupation of the property for a prescriptive period of 20 years. The occupation must clearly indicate a claim of ownership and notify the public of this claim. The burden of proof lies with the adverse possessor, requiring clear and positive evidence of adverse possession against the true owner. Evidence is strictly construed, favoring the legal title holder. In this case, the evidence presented does not show that Dover Scott's possession was adverse, as he purchased interests from co-tenants and did not assert full ownership, merely holding an undivided interest. Additionally, Tennessee law offers a presumption of legal ownership for individuals who have paid state and county taxes on property for over 20 years and have recorded their title documentation. Conversely, failure to pay such taxes for over 20 years bars any legal claims to recover the property or its profits.

Tenn. Code Ann. 28-2-109 and 28-2-110 establish a prima facie case of ownership, but this presumption is rebuttable. The Tennessee Supreme Court in Phillips v. Pittsburgh Consolidated Coal clarified that a tenant in common can sue another tenant in common for tax payments unless the plaintiff has been disseised or ousted. In Burress v. Woodward, the Court noted that 28-2-110 does not prevent defendants from defending their title, and non-payment of taxes for twenty years does not automatically eject them. While the Plaintiffs/Appellants demonstrated payment of property taxes, establishing a rebuttable presumption of ownership, the Yarbros successfully rebutted this presumption, shifting the burden back to the Scotts to prove they had been ousted. The evidence did not support such a finding, leading to the conclusion that the Scotts failed to meet their burden of proof. Consequently, the trial court's judgment is affirmed, with costs of the appeal equally assessed to the Appellants and their sureties.