Summary
The Alabama Supreme Court reviewed a boundary-line judgment between adjoining property owners in Barbour County. Because the successor trial judge relied on testimony from a prior proceeding rather than hearing the evidence orally, the judgment was not entitled to a presumption of correctness. The court held that the irregular boundary description was unsupported by credible evidence and remanded with instructions to establish a straight north-south boundary from the identified iron pin or monument.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the successor trial judge's boundary judgment was entitled to a presumption of correctness when the judge did not hear the testimony but relied on testimony from the original trial.
- Whether the evidence supported the irregular boundary line established in the successor trial judge's judgment.
- What boundary line should be established based on the credible evidence and recognized landmark.
Holdings
- A judgment establishing a boundary line is not entitled to a presumption of correctness when the deciding judge relies on testimony taken in a prior proceeding rather than hearing the testimony orally before that judge; in that circumstance, the Supreme Court must independently weigh the evidence.
- The successor trial judge's irregular boundary judgment was not supported by credible evidence and therefore had to be reversed.
- The trial court was instructed to establish a north-south boundary line running due south from the base of the oak tree where the iron pin or stob was located, consistent with the original trial judgment.
Key quotations
“In this case, because the new trial judge did not hear any testimony, the judgment of the trial court is not accorded a presumption of correctness.” (998)
“Thus, Barrett’s survey and metes and bounds description are not supported by any credible evidence or any credible landmark.” (999)
“Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this cause for the trial court to establish a north-south boundary line lying due south from the base of the oak tree where the iron pin or “stob” was located, in accordance with the description in the judgment of the original trial judge.” (999)
Factual background
Jackson and her relatives owned property in Section 8 that adjoined the Stricklands' property in Section 9. An old iron pin, rebar, or stob at the base of an oak tree marked the northern end of a long-recognized north-south boundary, and testimony indicated that the boundary had been recognized for at least 55 years. The Stricklands' surveyor disregarded that landmark, reconstructed the quarter-quarter section from historical surveying calculations, and supplied an irregular metes-and-bounds line that was not supported by physical evidence or by his survey drawing. Jackson's timber company cut timber along the north-south line identified by local witnesses, leading to the underlying property dispute.
Procedural history
The Stricklands sued Jackson and others for allegedly cutting timber from the Stricklands' property, asserting negligence, wantonness, and conversion claims. The parties agreed to sever those tort claims and first litigate the boundary dispute. The original trial judge established a straight north-south boundary, but a successor judge vacated that judgment and entered a new judgment establishing an irregular boundary based on a survey. Jackson appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions.
Remand instructions
The trial court must establish a north-south boundary line lying due south from the base of the oak tree where the iron pin or stob was located, in accordance with the description in the original trial judge's judgment.