Background
The parties own adjoining Preston County properties separated by a disputed field of about one-half acre. The Phillips family permitted the Cobuns’ predecessors to use the field in the 1980s. In 2003, surveyor Aubrey Schultz prepared a plat placing the field within the Phillips property.
After Rodney Phillips revoked permission for the Cobuns to use the field in 2020, Richard Phillips acquired the property and obtained a 2021 resurvey from Schultz. The resurvey reached the same boundary conclusion as the 2003 plat and identified remnants of underground barbed wire consistent with that line. Phillips sued for declaratory, trespass, and injunctive relief; the Cobuns counterclaimed for adverse possession.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s judgment establishing the boundary under Schultz’s survey, confirming Phillips’s ownership of the disputed field, and rejecting the Cobuns’ adverse-possession claim. It also affirmed the denial of the Cobuns’ post-trial motions.
Applying deferential review to the findings after a bench trial, the court held that the circuit court reasonably credited Schultz’s testimony and survey evidence over the Cobuns’ expert, whose testimony included acknowledged mathematical errors and inconsistencies. The record also supported the finding that the Cobuns’ use began with permission and never became sufficiently adverse to establish adverse possession. The appellate court declined the Cobuns’ request to reweigh the trial evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Appellate courts do not reweigh competing evidence from a bench trial when the trial court’s findings are plausible on the record.
- Use of land that began with the owner’s permission does not establish adverse possession without proof that it became adverse and met the required elements.
- A trial court may credit a survey supported by consistent prior plats and physical evidence on the property.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the substantial deference given to trial courts resolving boundary disputes through competing surveyor testimony, deeds, plats, and witness credibility. A party challenging those findings on appeal must show clear error or an abuse of discretion, not merely present an alternative account of the evidence.