Wright v. Wright
270 Ga. 530, 512 S.E.2d 618 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A cotenant can establish title by adverse possession against other cotenants by committing unequivocal acts of ouster, such as conveying a fee simple interest in a portion of the co-owned property to a stranger, which are so open and notorious that they serve as express notice of the adverse claim.
Facts:
- In 1940, H. L. Wright, Sr. ('Harve') and his son H. L. Wright, Jr. ('Aitchey') jointly purchased a 429.5-acre farm, creating a tenancy in common.
- Harve died in 1942, having never paid any portion of the property's mortgage or taxes.
- In 1943, Harve's one-half interest in the farm was legally awarded to his widow, Leila, and their minor children, making them cotenants with Aitchey.
- Leila and her children lived on the farm with Aitchey until 1944, after which they moved away permanently and never claimed any ownership interest or share of profits.
- From 1941 onward, Aitchey and his wife Lorene exclusively possessed the farm, paid all property taxes, paid off the entire mortgage by 1944, and made substantial improvements.
- Beginning in 1962, Aitchey, without seeking permission from his cotenant siblings, conveyed portions of the farm to Jackson County via warranty deeds purporting to grant fee simple title.
- Aitchey also granted several flowage easements for dam and reservoir construction to third parties.
- Aitchey's siblings knew he claimed sole ownership but were afraid to confront him due to his 'overbearing and tyrannical' nature, despite confirming their joint ownership through a title search in the 1970s.
Procedural Posture:
- The Estate of H. L. Wright, Jr. (plaintiffs) filed an action to quiet title against the heirs of H. L. Wright, Sr. (defendants) in the trial court.
- The complaint asserted claims for title based on adverse possession, purchase money resulting trust, and constructive trust.
- At the close of the plaintiffs' evidence at trial, the defendants moved for a directed verdict on all counts.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion on the constructive trust theory but denied it as to the adverse possession and purchase money resulting trust claims.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them title to the property on the theory of adverse possession.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Georgia, arguing the trial court erred in denying their motion for a directed verdict on the adverse possession claim.
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 cotenant's exclusive possession, payment of all taxes and mortgage installments, making of substantial improvements, and unilateral conveyance of portions of the property to third parties under a fee simple deed constitute sufficient ouster or express notice to establish title by adverse possession against other cotenants?
Opinions:
Majority - Thompson, Justice.
Yes. A cotenant's actions of exclusively possessing, paying all expenses for, and conveying portions of the property under a fee simple deed are sufficient to establish title by adverse possession against other cotenants. While a presumption exists that a cotenant holds property for the benefit of all, this can be rebutted by an 'actual ouster' or 'express notice' of an adverse claim. The court reasoned that while exclusive possession and payment of taxes alone are insufficient, Aitchey's act of conveying a fee simple interest in a portion of the land to a stranger in 1962 was an 'unequivocal act' constituting an ouster. This act, being a public record, was so visible, hostile, and notorious that notice to his cotenant siblings could be presumed. Furthermore, the siblings' own testimony confirmed they had actual notice of Aitchey's hostile claim but chose not to act, which further supported the jury's finding that notice was 'brought home' to them.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high standard required for a cotenant to adversely possess against another, moving beyond mere exclusive possession. It establishes that an overt, unequivocal act of ownership, such as selling a portion of the property under a fee simple deed, can satisfy the 'ouster' or 'express notice' requirement under Georgia law. The decision is significant because it provides a clear example of conduct that transforms permissive possession among family members into the hostile possession required for a successful adverse possession claim. Future cases involving cotenant disputes will look to this decision to determine whether a possessor's actions were sufficiently notorious and hostile to put their co-owners on notice.
Unlock the full brief for Wright v. Wright