Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Tillison v. Taylor
Citations: 572 So. 2d 429; 1990 Ala. LEXIS 1061; 1990 WL 226608Docket: 89-489
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; November 29, 1990; Alabama; State Supreme Court
In this boundary line dispute, John Willmer Tillison initiated legal action against G.E. and Gladys E. Taylor, John H. and Iva Lee Maxwell, and Larry Maxwell, regarding the true boundary between their properties. The trial court determined that the boundary line is an old fence line favored by the defendants, rather than the line indicated by a 1986 survey commissioned by Tillison. Tillison purchased approximately 96 acres in 1966, bordered to the north by L.C. East’s land, which was subsequently sold to the defendants. The trial focused on whether the defendants' use of the land north of the fence was hostile or permitted by Tillison. Tillison claimed that in 1968, he had a conversation with Mr. Taylor about replacing the old fence, during which he indicated he did not know where the property line was but would not mind if Taylor built a new fence. Taylor denied asking for permission. Tillison argued this conversation implies the defendants' possession was permissive, which they failed to rebut. Under Alabama law, a coterminous landowner can acquire title through adverse possession if they possess the disputed land openly, exclusively, and continuously for 10 years, regardless of whether their belief about the property line is mistaken. Possession is considered hostile if the possessor claims the property as their own. Since 1968, Taylor has used the disputed land for grazing cattle and cutting hay, establishing his claim through adverse possession. Similarly, the Maxwells demonstrated open and continuous possession by keeping horses and mowing the grass on their claimed land. Community recognition of the fence as the boundary for 75 years, supported by testimony from Preston Welch’s sister, further substantiates the defendants' claims. Clifford Johnson, a lifelong resident of the area, testified that the fence in question had always been in its current location. His testimony went unchallenged by Tillison, who claimed he was unaware of the fence's existence before purchasing his property. In cases where evidence is presented orally, a trial court's determination of a boundary is presumed correct if supported by credible evidence. The court's findings can only be overturned if they are clearly erroneous or unjust. The record confirms ample credible evidence backing the trial court's decision, leading to the affirmation of the judgment. Additionally, Nancy Yvonne Tillison, a co-grantee on the property deed, is a party to the case but did not participate actively in the proceedings.