Real Estate Law in APA Style - Essay Example

the appellant, Karen Steinichen, showed reluctance to file any exclusion to the special master’s report before the trial court recorded its judgment adopting the report. Steinichen then moved for a new trial, challenging that the proof did not sustain the trial court’s judgment. While denying Steinichen’s motion for a new trial, the trial court ruled that Steinichen gave up her right to point to the special master’s report and the trial court’s judgment by running out to object to the report before the trial court adopted it. On further appeal, Steinichen argues that this ruling was an error. Thus, the Trial court’s judgment was reversed and the case was remanded to the trial court for it to address the merits of Steinichen’s motion for a new trial(http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=FCLRetrieveCaseDetail&caseID=7&format=FULL&resultHandle=ae14b712d0559ea22a3d8054440e2522&pageLimit=10&xmlgTotalCount=89&combinedSearchTerm=adverse+possession&juriName=Georgia&sourceFile=STATES;GACTS accessed on 21 October 2009).

Holding:
The Supreme Court, Benham, J., held that evidence was adequate to sustain the finding that the adverse possessor gained prescriptive title to the property by possession for over 20 years. All the Justices concur.

Issues of the case
At issue is the title to a rectangular-shaped piece of real property with dimensions of 25 feet by 75 feet in Hoschton, Georgia. The appellant filed an appeal to quiet title against the entire world about four contiguous parcels of real property. The appellee and the owner of the property adjacent to that of the appellant, Larry Stancil, filed an answer and counterclaim in which he contended he held fee simple title to the property at issue. Consistent with OCGA § 23-3-63, the case was presented to a special master who quieted title to three of the four Tracts in Stancil after ruling that Steinichen had failed to present evidence-establishing title to those parcels. As to the fourth parcel, the special master ruled that Steinichen had failed to carry her burden of proof to establish title and that Stancil had presented sufficient evidence to establish adverse possession under color of title as well as prescriptive title without color of title. The trial court figured an order assuming the findings and the testimonial of the special master and announced Stancil as the holder of fee simple title to all the property in dispute. This appeal follows the denial of Steinichen’s motion for new trial (http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=FCLRetrieveCaseDetail&caseID=7&format=FULL&resultHandle=ae14b712d0559ea22a3d8054440e2522&pageLimit=10&xmlgTotalCount=89&combinedSearchTerm=adverse+possession&juriName=Georgia&sourceFile=STATES;GACTS accessed on 21 October 2009).

Appellee’s Argument
Steinichen does not take issue with the trial court’s finding that she was not able to prove her title to the disputed tract. Instead, she maintains that the manifest was deficient to back up the conclusion that Stancil had gained the property by adverse possession. "To establish title by adverse possession, whether by twenty years or seven years under color of title, a party must show possession not originated in fraud that is public, continuous, exclusive, uninterrupted and peaceable, and accompanied by a claim of right (Cooley v. McRae, 275 Ga. 435, 436 (569 SE2d 845) (2002). ‘In an action to quiet title under OCGA § 23-3-60 et seq., the findings of the Special Master and adopted by the trial court will be upheld unless clearly erroneous (Cooley v. McRae, 275 Ga. 435, 436, 569 SE2d 845) (2002). If there is any evidence to support the trial court’s judgment, it will not be disturbed on appeal Cooley v. McRae, 275 Ga. 435, 436 (569 SE2d, 845) (2002)" (http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=FCLRetrieveCaseDetail&caseID=7&format=FULL&resultHandle=ae14b712d0559ea22a3d8054440e2522&pageLimit=10&xmlgTotalCount=89&combinedSearchTerm=adverse+possession&juriName=Georgia&sourceFile=STATES;GACTS accessed on 21 October 2009).

Opinion of the Court
The court opined that the appellant, Karen Steinichen, did not file any exclusions to the special master's report before the trial court recorded its judgment adopting the report. Steinichen later moved for a new trial, challenging the evidence of the trial court's judgment. In refusing Steinichen's motion for a new trial, the trial court ruled, “Steinichen had waived her right to object to the special master's report and the trial court's judgment by failing to object to the report before the trial court adopted it”. On appeal, Steinichen contends that this ruling was error. For the reasons that follow, we agree and therefore reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case to the trial court for it to address the merits of Steinichen's motion for a new trial (http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/ free caselaw?action=FCLRetrieveCaseDetail&caseID=7&format=FULL&resultHandle=ae14b712d0559ea22a3d8054440e2522&pageLimit=10&xmlgTotalCount=89&combinedSearchTerm=adverse+possession&juriName=Georgia&sourceFile=STATES; GACTS accessed on 21 October 2009).

Conclusion
The supposed owner of the real property filed an action against the adverse possessor, looking for a quiet title.

The purported owner appealed. The Supreme Court, 281 Ga. 75, 635 S.E.2d 158, reversed and remanded. On remand, the trial court entered an order declaring the adverse possessor the holder of a fee simple to one parcel that the purported owner had claimed title to. The purported owner appealed (http://www. lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=FCLRetrieveCaseDetail&caseID=7&format=FULL&resultHandle=ae14b712d0559ea22a3d8054440e2522&pageLimit=10&xmlgTotalCount=89&combinedSearchTerm=adverse+possession&juriName=Georgia&sourceFile=STATES;GACTS accessed on 21 October 2009). Read More