The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently upheld a ruling regarding a property boundary dispute between Developed by Design, LLC and adjacent landowners James M. Travis and Mary E. Travis. The court affirmed the lower court's decision that the Travises did not prove their claim of adverse possession over a disputed tract of land. This ruling clarifies property rights and the requirements for claiming ownership through adverse possession.

The case, docket number E2025-01761-COA-R3-CV, began when Developed by Design, LLC purchased approximately 43.39 acres of unimproved real estate in Rhea County on August 6, 2021. The company intended to develop the land but faced complaints from the Travises, who claimed that the company had encroached on their property. The company argued that its understanding of the boundary line was consistent with a recorded survey from 1967, which both parties' deeds referenced.

The Travises countered by claiming ownership of the disputed property through adverse possession, stating they had maintained the land for over 20 years. They filed a counter-complaint seeking a declaratory judgment on the boundary line and maintenance responsibilities related to an easement. The trial court found in favor of Developed by Design, ruling that the Travises had not met the necessary elements to establish adverse possession.

Background

Developed by Design, LLC, represented by attorney M. Keith Davis, filed a complaint against the Travises on June 14, 2023. The company sought to establish the boundary line between its property and the Travises’ land, as well as a permanent injunction against the Travises for interfering with their development plans. The Travises, represented by attorneys John Michael Deakins and Joshua E. Hixson, denied the company’s claims and asserted that they had adversely possessed the disputed property.

During the trial, the court heard evidence regarding the boundary line, the rights related to the easement, and the Travises' claim of adverse possession. The trial court found that the Travises failed to establish their claim, leading to their appeal of the decision.

The Ruling

The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II, affirmed the trial court's ruling, stating that the Travises did not meet the burden of proof required for adverse possession. The court noted, "the [Travises] did not establish that they met each of the elements required to sustain their claim." The court highlighted that while the Travises claimed to have mowed and maintained the disputed area, these actions did not constitute adverse possession.

The court emphasized the need for clear and convincing evidence to establish adverse possession, which requires possession to be actual, exclusive, open, and notorious. The trial court found that the Travises did not take steps to keep anyone off the disputed property until after the company purchased its land in 2021, undermining their claim. The court stated, "the [Travises] failed to establish that their possession of the disputed property was open and notorious because there was no way for anyone to know that there was any controversy related to the ownership interest."

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for property rights in Tennessee. It clarifies the requirements for establishing adverse possession, emphasizing that mere maintenance or use of a property is not sufficient to claim ownership. The decision reinforces the need for property owners to be aware of their boundaries and to take action if they believe their rights are being infringed upon.

The ruling also serves as a reminder for landowners to maintain clear documentation and understanding of property boundaries, especially when disputes arise. The court's decision may influence future cases involving adverse possession and property disputes, setting a precedent for how such claims are evaluated in Tennessee.

What's Next

The Travises have the option to appeal the ruling to a higher court, although details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. For now, the case is remanded to the trial court for execution of the judgment and collection of costs.