Brown v. Gobble
474 S.E.2d 489 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party claiming title to land through adverse possession must prove each essential element of the claim by clear and convincing evidence.
Facts:
- Starting in 1937, the Blevins family owned property and treated an adjacent two-foot-wide, fenced-in tract of land as their own.
- In 1978, the Blevins sold their property to the Fletchers, who continued to possess and use the disputed tract under the belief it was part of their property.
- In April 1985, David and Sue Ann Gobble purchased the property from the Fletchers. The disputed tract was enclosed by a fence, making it appear to be part of the Gobbles' land, and they used it as such.
- In April 1989, Gary and Mitzi Brown purchased the neighboring property. A survey they commissioned before the sale showed that the disputed two-foot tract was legally part of their property.
- The Browns were aware of the boundary discrepancy but took no action to assert their ownership over the tract.
- In August 1994, the Browns attempted to build a road on the disputed tract, leading the Gobbles to interfere and assert their own claim of ownership.
Procedural Posture:
- Gary S. Brown and Mitzi Brown filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Mercer County (trial court) against David L. Gobble and Sue Ann Gobble, seeking to enjoin them from interfering with their use of a disputed tract of land.
- The Gobbles filed a counterclaim asserting ownership of the tract by adverse possession.
- Following a bench trial, the circuit court found for the Browns, ruling that the Gobbles had 'failed to show by clear and convincing evidence their ownership by way of adverse possession.'
- The Gobbles, as appellants, appealed the circuit court's final order to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, with the Browns as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the standard of proof required to establish title by adverse possession clear and convincing evidence, rather than a preponderance of the evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cleckley
Yes. A claim of adverse possession must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. This heightened standard is necessary to protect established property rights and minimize the risk of erroneously taking land from a title owner based on spurious claims. This court joins the majority of jurisdictions in adopting the clear and convincing standard, which is consistent with West Virginia's standard for proving easements and reflects the significant interests at stake in losing property. Although the trial court correctly applied this standard, it failed to make adequate factual findings regarding the defendants' claim of 'tacking'—adding the possession periods of their predecessors (the Blevins and Fletchers) to their own to meet the ten-year statutory requirement. The trial court's findings ignored the substantial evidence presented by the Gobbles on this issue. Therefore, the case must be remanded for the trial court to make more detailed findings that properly address the tacking claim.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes 'clear and convincing evidence' as the standard of proof for adverse possession in West Virginia, resolving previous ambiguity and aligning the state with the majority rule. This raises the evidentiary bar for claimants, making it more difficult to acquire title through adverse possession and offering greater protection to record titleholders. The ruling also serves as a strong directive to trial courts, requiring them to provide detailed factual findings that specifically address all legal theories presented, such as tacking, to ensure a transparent and reviewable basis for their judgments in complex property disputes.
Unlock the full brief for Brown v. Gobble