Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 96-CA-00255 COA CAROLYN TROTTER HOOD v. CARROLL D. COX, JANET COX, JAMES W. COX, AND GWENDOLYN CULIPHER APPELLANT APPELLEES

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-B DATE OF JUDGMENT: TRIAL JUDGE: COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: NATURE OF THE CASE: TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: DISPOSITION: MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: CERTIORARI FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: 02/05/96 HON. PAT WISE HINDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT SAM M. BRAND JR. PHILLIP M. NELSON J. JEFFREY TROTTER CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY TITLE TO CONTESTED PROPERTY QUIETED IN APPELLEE AFFIRMED - 12/02/97

12/23/97

BEFORE BRIDGES, C.J., DIAZ, AND COLEMAN, JJ. DIAZ, J., FOR THE COURT: Carolyn Trotter Hood contests the lower court's decision to quiet title to a contested parcel of property in favor of the appellees. Aggrieved by this decision, Hood argues (1) that the chancellor erred in finding that the Hood title was not superior to the Cox title and (2) that the chancellor erroneously found that the Cox family had obtained title through adverse possession. Finding both issues without merit, we affirm. FACTS

This case arose from a dispute over title to a parcel of land located along the Big Black River in northern Hinds County. The parcel claimed by Hood is described as Lot 1, Section 15, Township 8 North, Range 3 West, Hinds County, Mississippi. The parcel claimed by the appellees (hereinafter collectively referred to as Cox) is described as Lot 1 being all the Southeast Quarter Northeast Quarter East of Big Black, Section 15, Township 8, Range 3 West, Hinds County, Mississippi. Although each description is slightly different, both descriptions refer to the same piece of property. Hood deraigns her title to the subject property back to the year 1858, while Cox deraigns his title as far back as 1899. Furthermore, both parties have been consistently paying property taxes on this same parcel of land. Therefore, Hood and Cox each claim to be the rightful owner of the subject property. DISCUSSION

I. DID THE CHANCELLOR ERR IN FINDING THAT THE HOOD TITLE WAS NOT SUPERIOR TO THE COX TITLE?

We must first point out that this Court applies a limited standard of review on appeals from chancery court. Reddell v. Reddell, 696 So. 2d 287, 288 (Miss. 1997). We will not interfere with the chancellor's findings unless she was "manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous or an erroneous legal standard was applied." Bell v. Parker, 563 So. 2d 594, 596-97 (Miss. 1990). The chancellor in the present case found that both Hood and Cox adequately proved that they each owned clear record title to the property in dispute. However, proof of clear record title is an insufficient basis for finding that a party's title is superior when there is a valid dual chain of title to the subject property. Rather, the complainant must show perfect title in herself. Culbertson v. Dixie Oil Co., 467 So. 2d 952, 954 (Miss. 1985). A careful review of the facts makes it clear that Hood failed to prove that her title was superior to the Cox title. Accordingly, we find that the chancellor did not commit error in her ruling on this issue; therefore, this proposition is without merit. II. DID THE CHANCELLOR ERR IN FINDING THAT THE COX FAMILY HAD OBTAINED TITLE THROUGH ADVERSE POSSESSION? Mississippi's adverse possession statute provides in part: Ten years' actual adverse possession by any person claiming to be the owner for that time of any land, uninterruptedly continued for ten years by occupancy, descent, conveyance, or otherwise, in whatever way such occupancy may have commenced or continued, shall vest in every actual occupant or possessor of such land a full and complete title . . . .

Miss. Code Ann.

Download Carolyn Trotter Hood v. Carroll D. Cox.pdf

Mississippi Law