Background
Kenneth and Deborah Lanham purchased a 57.30-acre property from Kenneth’s parents in 2005. The property had been in the Lanham family since 1985. An 1914 deed from the executors of the Aud Brothers’ estates to Lillie Morris—the originating transfer in the chain of title—contained a scrivener’s error in the legal property description. That error perpetuated through every subsequent deed for over a century.
In 2020, when the Lanhams surveyed the property, they discovered the description error and filed a quiet title action in August 2021. Mary Ann Mitchell, a great-grandchild of the Aud Brothers, emerged as the only interested party who did not waive her claim. Mitchell asserted she possessed an ownership interest as a co-tenant or tenant in common based on the defective 1914 deed’s failure to transfer title. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Lanhams in June 2025.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment, holding that the Lanhams established title through adverse possession. Under Kentucky law, adverse possession requires clear and convincing evidence that possession was actual, open and notorious, exclusive, continuous, and under claim of right hostile to the owner’s interest. The court found the Lanhams and their predecessors satisfied all elements over more than 100 years—well exceeding the 15-year statutory period. The Lanhams used the property for farming and hunting, maintained its boundaries, excluded trespassers, and paid property taxes.
The court also upheld the trial court’s reformation of the deed based on the Aud Brothers’ clear intent to convey the property, evidenced by receipt of valuable consideration from Lillie Morris. Kentucky law permits deed reformation when mutual mistake or scrivener’s error frustrates the parties’ intent. The court noted that the consistent exclusive possession and exclusive control by successive owners for over a century provided compelling evidence of intent to transfer, despite the technical defect in description.
Critically, Mitchell failed to present affirmative evidence of any property rights from 1921 to 2025 and did not demonstrate she had been “ousted” as a tenant in common, as required to support her adverse possession defense. The court rejected her claim that a century-old scrivener’s error should vest her with concurrent ownership rights.
Key Takeaways
- Adverse possession can ripen into full title through mistake or unintentional possession, provided all statutory elements are satisfied for the 15-year period.
- Courts may reform deeds containing scrivener’s errors or mutual mistakes when evidence shows the parties’ intent to convey, particularly when supported by decades of consistent possession and exclusive control.
- Long-standing possession, maintenance of boundaries, tax payment, and recognition by adjacent landowners constitute strong evidence supporting adverse possession and defeating late-asserted claims.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when an opposing party fails to present affirmative evidence of disputed material facts or waits years before asserting claimed rights.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Kentucky recognizes adverse possession as a complete bar to claims by remote heirs or interest holders, even when based on technical defects in deeds. The opinion confirms that reformation of deeds to reflect original intent is available to property holders who have innocently occupied property under defective title, particularly when the defect resulted from scrivener error rather than fraud.
For practitioners, the decision demonstrates the importance of title searches and survey work in protecting long-held property interests and highlights that delayed assertion of claims—particularly by remote successors who have taken no action for over a century—will not prevail against established adverse possession. The case also shows how a promptly-filed quiet title action, once judgment is obtained, conclusively establishes ownership against all successors and claimants.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.