Battle v. Battle
235 N.C. 499, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 425, 70 S.E.2d 492 (1952)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statute of limitations for adverse possession does not run against a co-tenant who is under a pre-existing and continuous legal disability, such as being non compos mentis. While a subsequent disability will not stop the statute once it has begun to run, a disability that exists before the period of adverse possession commences prevents the statute from ever running against that disabled party.
Facts:
- In 1902, Arcenia Hopkins acquired title to several lots of land.
- In 1908, Arcenia Hopkins placed her daughter, Arcenia Boddie, and her husband, Julius Boddie, in possession of a specific lot, No. 817, where they built a home.
- In 1919, Arcenia Hopkins intended to convey lot No. 817 to the Boddies, but a mistake in the deed's description failed to transfer the lot.
- The Boddies continued to exclusively possess, improve, and pay taxes on lot No. 817, claiming it as their own.
- Arcenia Hopkins died in 1925, at which point her children, including Arcenia Boddie and a son, Henderson Battle, who had been non compos mentis since infancy, inherited her properties as tenants in common.
- After 1925, the Boddies, and subsequently their children (plaintiffs James H. Boddie and Julia Boddie Galloway), continued in exclusive and adverse possession of lot No. 817 for over 20 years.
Procedural Posture:
- James H. Boddie and Julia Boddie Galloway (plaintiffs) filed an action in a state trial court to determine title to lot No. 817.
- The case was tried by a jury, which returned a verdict establishing the plaintiffs as the sole owners of the lot.
- The defendants made a motion for judgment of nonsuit, which the trial court denied.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a claim of adverse possession ripen into full title against all co-tenants when one co-tenant was under a continuous legal disability (non compos mentis) that existed before the period of adverse possession against the co-tenants began?
Opinions:
Majority - Devin, O. J.
No. A claim of adverse possession does not ripen into full title against a co-tenant whose legal disability existed before the adverse possession period commenced. Upon Arcenia Hopkins' death in 1925, her heirs, including Arcenia Boddie and Henderson Battle, became tenants in common. The Boddies' possession, which was previously adverse to their mother, was then legally considered possession on behalf of all co-tenants. To claim title against co-tenants, there must be an ouster followed by 20 years of adverse possession. While the plaintiffs demonstrated this against the other co-tenants, the statute of limitations for adverse possession does not run against a person under a legal disability. Because Henderson Battle was non compos mentis before the co-tenancy was created and the adverse possession against his interest could have begun, the statute never started running against him. Therefore, the plaintiffs acquired title to the eight-ninths interest held by the other co-tenants but could not divest Henderson Battle of his one-ninth interest.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the critical distinction between pre-existing and subsequent disabilities in the context of adverse possession among co-tenants. It reinforces the principle that statutes of limitation are tolled for individuals legally incapable of protecting their rights, provided the disability existed at the inception of the adverse claim. The ruling establishes that while ousting a co-tenant is possible, the claim's validity must be assessed individually against each co-tenant, and a pre-existing disability acts as an absolute bar to the running of the statute. This case serves as a precedent for protecting the property rights of legally incompetent individuals from being extinguished by adverse possession, even within a family context.
