## Facts

- Herman Scott owned land adjacent to Anderson-Tully Company in Jefferson County, Mississippi.
- A wire fence sat on Scott’s property. Because of where the fence stood, about 20 acres that belonged to Scott lay on Anderson’s side of the fence.
- Anderson bought its adjoining tract in 1969 by quitclaim deed; the deed description included the 20 acres even though Scott claimed the acreage was actually part of his land.
- After purchasing in 1969, Anderson marked the fence line with its distinctive blue paint to show the boundary line as Anderson understood it.
- Witnesses testified the community recognized the specific shade of blue paint as Anderson’s boundary marker and that the blue paint had been present since 1969.
- None of the Scotts objected to Anderson’s painting of the fence or its activities on the 20-acre area for decades.
- From 1969 to 2010, Anderson maintained the 20 acres and harvested timber on it a few times, most recently in 2010.
- During that same period, Anderson issued five hunting licenses covering the area.
- A witness testified that when the Scotts harvested timber in the past (including in 1993), they cut timber up to the fence but did not cut on the other side of the fence.
- In 2010, Scott sued, seeking damages for removed timber and to quiet title to the 20-acre tract.
- The chancery court found Anderson had acquired title to the 20 acres by adverse possession. Scott appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the chancery court erred in finding that Anderson proved, by clear and convincing evidence, all elements of adverse possession of the 20-acre tract under Mississippi law.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the chancery court’s judgment.
- The court held there was substantial evidence to support the chancellor’s finding that Anderson’s possession of the 20 acres was open, notorious, and visible; hostile and under claim of ownership; exclusive; peaceful; and continuous for more than the ten-year statutory period.
- The court upheld quieting title to the disputed 20-acre tract in Anderson based on adverse possession.

## Legal Principles

- To obtain title by adverse possession in Mississippi, the claimant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that possession was: (1) under claim of right/ownership, (2) hostile/actual, (3) open, notorious, and visible, (4) continuous and uninterrupted for at least ten years, (5) exclusive, and (6) peaceful and without the owner’s consent.
- For wild or unimproved timberland, continuous possession does not require constant physical occupation; acts typical of an owner of timber property—such as clearly marking boundary lines, maintaining the tract, periodically harvesting timber, and granting hunting rights—can satisfy the elements when carried on for the statutory period.
- A visible boundary marker (including a fence line marked as a boundary) and long-term community recognition of that marker may support a finding that the possession was open and notorious and that the record owner had notice of the adverse claim.
- On appeal from chancery court, adverse-possession findings are treated as fact findings and are affirmed if supported by substantial evidence; the appellate court will not reweigh conflicting testimony and will reverse only for manifest error or use of an incorrect legal standard.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment quieting title in Anderson-Tully because the evidence showed that, from 1969 until the 2010 lawsuit, Anderson visibly claimed the 20-acre tract along the fence with its distinctive blue paint, maintained and used the land in ways consistent with timber ownership (including timber cuts and hunting licenses), and did so exclusively and without objection for far longer than Mississippi’s ten-year adverse-possession period.


Scott v. Anderson-Tully Co., 154 So. 3d 910 (2015)