seeking to establish its title has the burden of proving each and every fact essential to its claim of title by a preponderance of the evidence. Wells v. Johnson , 443 S.W.3d 479, 489 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2014, pet. denied). That is, a title claimant seeking to prove its title by adverse possession must prove every fact by “clear and satisfactory” evidence. Orsborn v. Deep Rock Oil Corp ., 267 S.W.2d 781, 786 (Tex. 1954). 2. “To prevail on a claim of adverse possession under section 16.026(a), the elements to prove by a preponderance of the evidence are: (1) actual and visible possession of the disputed property; (2) that is adverse and hostile to the claim of the owner of record title; (3) that is open and notorious; (4) that is peaceable; (5) that is exclusive; and (6) involves continuous cultivation, use, or enjoyment for ten years. Glover v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. , 187 S.W.3d 201, 213 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. denied) citing Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Pool , 124 S.W.3d 188, 193-94 (Tex. 2003).” Kazmir v. Benavides , 288 S.W.3d 557, 561 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (emphasis added). 3. The ten-year limitations period begins to run on the date the adverse possessor actually goes onto the disputed lands and visibly appropriates the claimed lands. The true issue, which must be proved by a preponderance of evidence by the adverse claimant, is what acts are claimed to constitute a “visible appropriation of the claimed lands.” Waddy v. City of Houston , 834 S.W.2d 97, 103 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ denied).” Kazmir v. Benavides , 288 S.W.3d 557, 561 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.). 4. “ One seeking to establish title to land by virtue of the statute of limitations has the burden of proving every fact essential to that claim by a preponderance of the evidence . Rhodes v. Cahill , 802 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex. 1990); Orsborn v. Deep Rock Oil Corp. , 153 Tex. 281, 286, 267 S.W.2d 781, 787 (1954) (holding that adverse claimant has the burden to prove every fact necessary to that claim by “clear and satisfactory” evidence which is not a standard of proof included in the Texas pattern jury charge issues except in the instance of the award of exemplary or
punitive damages where the evidence must be clear and convincing and must be supported by an unanimous verdict). Thus, the burden of proving each essential element is on the party claiming title by adverse possession. Fuentes v. Garcia , 696 S.W.2d 482, 484 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1985, no writ) (citing Davis v. Carriker , 536 S.W.2d 246, 251 (Tex. Civ. App.—Amarillo 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.)). See Moore v. Stone , 255 S.W.3d 284, 288 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, pet. denied).” Wells v. Johnson, 443 S.W.3d 479, 488 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2014, pet. denied) (emphasis added). 5. The burden of proof on the adverse claimant is to show when the acts of adverse possession commenced (the exact date), how long those acts lasted (10 years) and if same were unbroken and prosecuted continuously. Texas law presumes that the true owner is in possession until the adverse possession claimant demonstrates, from an evidentiary standpoint, when adverse possession commenced. Carroll v. Brown, 472 S.W.2d 825 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler 1971, n.w.h.) . It is from that point in time that the record title owners obligation to bring suit begins to run. The statute provides that the only way to break the running of limitations is for the record title owner to bring suit within the statutory period. Elements of Adverse Possession The reader is referred to § 16.026. Adverse Possession: 10-Year Limitations Period set out above. The following are the general rules further explaining, via court decisions, how this statute is to be interpreted. 1. “Adverse possession is statutorily defined as an actual and visible appropriation of real property, commenced and continued under a claim of right that is inconsistent with and is hostile to the claim of another person.” Rhodes v. Cahill , 802 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex. 1990) 2. Since a completed and perfected act of adverse possession disenfranchises the record title owner, compliance with the statutory requirements is strictly construed. Thomas v. Southwestern Settlement & Development Co. , 131 S.W.2d 31, 34 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1939, writ dism’d
16
N at i onal A ssociation of D i v i s i on O rder A nalys t s
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs