Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hoover v. Callen

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

March 25, 2014

TIM HOOVER, APPELLANT
v.
GEORGE WAYNE CALLEN AND NELTA JEAN CALLEN, APPELLEES

COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: WARREN COUNTY CHANCERY COURT. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/27/2012. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. VICKI R. BARNES. TRIAL COURT DENIED APPELLANT'S ADVERSE-POSSESSION AND EASEMENT-BY-NECESSITY CLAIMS.

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.

FOR APPELLANT: MEL J. BREEDEN JR.

FOR APPELLEES: FRANK G. VOLLOR.

BEFORE IRVING, P.J., CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ. LEE, C.J., GRIFFIS, P.J., BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON, MAXWELL AND FAIR, JJ., CONCUR. JAMES, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.

OPINION

Page 829

NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY

IRVING, P.J.

¶1. Tim Hoover filed a complaint against George Wayne Callen (George) and Nelta Jean Callen (Nelta Jean) in the

Page 830

Warren County Chancery Court, claiming that he acquired a portion of the Callens' property through adverse possession or, alternatively, that he is entitled to an easement by necessity on their property. The chancery court denied both of Hoover's claims. Feeling aggrieved, Hoover appeals and argues that the chancellor erred in determining that he did not adversely possess the disputed property and in not granting him an easement by necessity.

¶2. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTS

¶3. The Callens are the owners of a parcel of land that adjoins the eastern and southern borders of Hoover's land. Hoover claims that he has lived on his property with his family since the 1970s.[1] He testified that he and his brother Mayo built a fence in 1973 or 1974, which they considered the boundary line between their property and the Callens' property. He further testified that, twelve to fifteen years prior to the trial of this matter, he was present when Mayo installed a field line for a waste disposal septic system. The field line extended from the southern portion of the Hoovers' land onto the Callens' land, allowing sewage from the Hoovers' property to run underground onto the Callens' property. Hoover claims that he never discussed the field line with George, and George never made a complaint to him regarding the field line. However, without consulting Hoover, George dug up the portion of the field line that was on the Callens' property. According to George, who testified after Hoover, Hoover sought to purchase that portion of the Callens' property that contained the field line, but George refused to sell it. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.