Able v. Lawson
Docket: 86-1568
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; March 31, 1988; Alabama; State Supreme Court
An appeal was made regarding a boundary dispute between coterminous landowners, Jimmy and Dorothy Able (plaintiffs) and Sybil Lawson (defendant). The trial court determined the boundary as stated in the plaintiffs’ complaint but ruled that Lawson had acquired the disputed strip through adverse possession. The plaintiffs contended that the trial court misapplied the law, despite acknowledging conflicting evidence that supported the court's conclusion. The plaintiffs own Lot 11 in a subdivision, while Lawson owns Lot 12, having purchased it in 1962. The plaintiffs acquired their property in 1983, following a survey that revealed Lawson's encroachment of 12 feet. Lawson's husband established a dog pen on the disputed land in 1970. Prior legal actions initiated by Mr. Wade (the plaintiffs' predecessor) against Lawson concerning the property resulted in judgments and dismissals but did not resolve boundary issues. The plaintiffs raised two main issues: whether Lawson's offer to buy Lot 11 disproved her claim of adverse possession and whether she was estopped from claiming adverse possession due to a prior court adjudication. The court ruled that Lawson's offer to purchase did not negate her claim since it occurred well after her adverse possession had been established for over ten years. Furthermore, the prior small claims court adjudication addressed alleged rent and did not adjudicate property boundaries, thus failing to create an estoppel on Lawson's part. The court emphasized that findings on adverse possession are factual and typically maintain a presumption of correctness when based on ore terms evidence. The plaintiffs did not overcome this presumption, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's judgment. The ruling was affirmed with concurrence from Chief Justice Torbert and Justices Jones, Adams, and Steagall.