Background
Sherman Asher and Boyd Asher sued adjoining landowner Claude Martin to quiet title to disputed property in Clay County, Kentucky. They claimed ownership through a valid deed or, alternatively, adverse possession. Martin counterclaimed that he held title through a deed transfer and affidavits of descent.
After an October 2025 bench trial, the Clay Circuit Court found that Boyd received a deed to the property in 2000, placed a mobile home there in 2004, mortgaged the property, and cleared, fenced, cultivated, and improved it. Boyd conveyed the property to Sherman in 2021. The court found that a walnut tree and distinct tree line marked the boundary and concluded that Martin had no interest in the disputed property, mobile home, or driveway.
The circuit court ruled that the Ashers established title by deed and, alternatively, proved adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence. Martin appealed, challenging findings concerning whether the Ashers occupied the property with his permission and whether their possession was adverse.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed. Applying the clearly erroneous standard to the circuit court’s factual findings, the panel held that the evidence adequately supported the finding that Martin did not give either Asher permission to place the mobile home on the property. The circuit court was entitled to assess witness credibility and reject Martin’s conflicting testimony and survey evidence, particularly because the surveyor did not testify.
The court also rejected Martin’s argument that permissive use prevented the Ashers from establishing adverse possession. Because the circuit court rejected Martin’s testimony that their occupancy was permissive until 2008, it could find that the Ashers occupied the property without permission or objection for more than the required 15-year statutory period. The evidence therefore supported the conclusion that the Ashers possessed the property adversely to Martin regardless of his asserted record ownership.
Key Takeaways
- Appellate courts will not disturb bench-trial factual findings that are supported by substantial evidence, while legal conclusions receive de novo review.
- A trial judge may reject disputed testimony and survey evidence based on credibility and evidentiary shortcomings, including the surveyor’s failure to testify.
- Open, exclusive, continuous, and adverse possession for more than 15 years supported the Ashers’ ownership claim even if Martin otherwise held record title.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of credibility findings in boundary and adverse-possession disputes. A claimed owner who knows that another person has placed a home on, improved, fenced, and continuously used disputed land may lose the ability to recover it if that possession remains unchallenged for the statutory period.
The unpublished opinion also illustrates the difficulty of overturning property findings after a bench trial: when the record supports the trial court’s account, an appellate court generally will not reweigh testimony or substitute its view of witness credibility.