Mullis v. Winchester
118 S.E.2d 61, 237 S.C. 487, 1961 S.C. LEXIS 6 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For wild, uncultivated lands not suited for farming or residence, the continuity requirement of adverse possession is met if the claimant's acts of ownership are consistent with the nature, location, and ordinary use of such property, such as the periodic but comprehensive harvesting of timber.
Facts:
- Prior to 1931, E. C. Winchester held title to a 310-acre tract of land.
- Winchester conveyed the land to R. H. Burns in 1931.
- The property taxes on the land went unpaid, leading to a tax sale where the county sheriff sold the tract to John S. Chonis.
- On December 14, 1943, Carl W. Mullis purchased the 310-acre tract from John S. Chonis for $8,500 and received a deed.
- Shortly after the purchase, a representative for Mullis informed Mrs. E. C. Winchester of the sale and obtained the property plat from her for $10; she did not assert an ownership claim at that time.
- Sometime after 1943, Mullis conducted a comprehensive timber cutting operation on the land, removing all merchantable timber over ten inches in diameter from the entire tract.
- From 1944 until the litigation began, Mullis paid all property taxes assessed against the land in his own name.
- The land was hilly and its best use was for growing timber, which was consistent with Mullis's business as owner of a lumber company.
Procedural Posture:
- Carl W. Mullis filed an action to quiet title in the trial court (Sixth Circuit) against the heirs of E. C. Winchester and devisees of R. H. Burns.
- At trial, it was stipulated that Mullis's claim was based solely on adverse possession under color of an invalid tax deed.
- The issue of adverse possession was submitted to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the appellants (Winchester's heirs).
- Mullis (the respondent) made a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto (JNOV), asking the judge to set aside the jury's verdict.
- The trial judge granted the motion for JNOV, ruling as a matter of law that Mullis had acquired title by adverse possession.
- The heirs of Winchester (appellants) appealed the trial judge's order to the Supreme Court of South 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 claimant establish title by adverse possession to a large tract of timberland by entering under color of title, paying property taxes, surveying the land, and conducting a large-scale timber cutting operation, when these acts are consistent with the ordinary use of such property?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Moss
Yes. A claimant establishes title by adverse possession when their use of the land is consistent with its nature and character, and such use provides sufficient notice of their hostile claim to the true owner and the community. Mullis entered the land under color of title via the deed from Chonis, which extended his claim to the entire 310-acre tract. The court reasoned that continuity of possession does not require constant physical presence, especially on wild, uncultivated land. The proper standard is whether the claimant's actions are consistent with how a true owner would manage such property. Here, the land's best use was for growing timber, and Mullis's actions—surveying the land, paying taxes for over a decade, and cutting all merchantable timber from the entire property for his lumber business—were substantial acts of ownership. These actions far exceeded mere occasional trespass and were open and notorious enough to apprise the community and the true owners of his exclusive, hostile claim. Because the appellants offered no contrary evidence, the facts were undisputed and susceptible of only one inference: Mullis had established title by adverse possession.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'continuity' and 'actual possession' elements of adverse possession as applied to non-arable or wild lands. It establishes that the legal standard for possession is flexible and depends on the character and typical use of the property in question. The case sets a precedent that periodic but substantial commercial activities, like a full-scale logging operation, can satisfy the requirements for adverse possession on timberland, distinguishing such acts from mere sporadic trespassing. This ruling provides guidance for future cases involving adverse claims to land not suitable for cultivation, improvement, or continuous residency.
