Carpenter v. Huffman
294 Ala. 189, 314 So. 2d 65, 1975 Ala. LEXIS 1168 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a grantor conveys property but also transfers actual possession of an adjacent, enclosed strip of land that they have been adversely possessing, the grantee may tack their period of possession onto the grantor's to satisfy the statutory period for adverse possession, even if the disputed strip is not described in the deed.
Facts:
- In 1948, Phil Alexander bought four acres of land and erected a fence on what he mistakenly believed was the property line, but which was actually 40 feet onto the neighboring parcel, thereby enclosing a disputed strip.
- In 1959, Alexander sold half an acre to his sister, Lizzie Huffman, and her northern boundary was established along the erroneous fence line.
- Huffman then built a house, half of which sat on the disputed 40-foot strip of land.
- Huffman also built a driveway across the strip and installed a water pump in one of the old fence postholes.
- Later, Ralph and Dorothy Carpenter purchased the adjacent property, and their grantor informed them that the existing fence was in the wrong place.
- The Carpenters commissioned a survey which confirmed the true boundary line ran through the middle of Huffman's house.
- When the Carpenters presented Huffman with an agreement to move her house, she refused to sign.
Procedural Posture:
- The Carpenters commenced a legal action against Lizzie Huffman in an Alabama trial court to resolve the boundary line dispute after she refused to move her house.
- After a hearing, the trial court decreed the boundary was 40 feet north of the deed line, vesting title to the disputed strip in Huffman.
- The Carpenters, as appellants, appealed the trial court's decision to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
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 sufficient privity exist for a grantee to tack their period of adverse possession onto that of their grantor when the grantor transfers actual possession of an enclosed, but un-deeded, strip of land along with the deeded property?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, J.
Yes. Sufficient privity exists for a grantee to tack their period of adverse possession onto their grantor's when the grantor transfers actual possession of an enclosed, but un-deeded, strip of land along with the deeded property. The court reasoned that for boundary disputes between coterminous landowners in Alabama, the key statutory requirements for adverse possession (such as color of title or payment of taxes) do not apply. While the possession must still be open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive for ten years, the continuity of possession is not broken by a conveyance if the grantor delivers actual possession of the entire enclosed area, including the disputed strip not described in the deed. The court adopted the rule from Graham v. Hawkins, stating that transferring physical possession of the disputed land held adversely by the grantor is sufficient to establish the privity needed for the grantee to tack the two periods of possession together.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the doctrine of 'tacking' in adverse possession for boundary disputes in Alabama. It establishes that the transfer of actual, physical possession of a disputed area is the critical element for establishing privity, rather than the formal inclusion of that area in a deed's legal description. This lowers the burden for subsequent possessors to claim title by adverse possession, as it prioritizes the physical reality of land use and transfer over strict adherence to written instruments. The ruling solidifies the principle that a continuous chain of adverse use can be maintained through successive owners as long as possession of the disputed land is intended to be, and is in fact, transferred between them.
