Real Estate Law

While denying Steinichen’s motion for 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 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 new trial(http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselawaction=FCLRetrieveCaseDetail&amp.caseID=7&amp.format=FULL&amp.resultHandle=ae14b712d0559ea22a3d8054440e2522&amp.pageLimit=10&amp.xmlgTotalCount=89&amp.combinedSearchTerm=adverse+possession&amp.juriName=Georgia&amp.sourceFile=STATES.GACTS accessed on 21 October 2009).
At issue is title to a rectangular-shaped piece of real property with dimension of 25 feet by 75 feet in Hoschton, Georgia. The appellant filed an appeal to quiet title against the entire world with regard to four contiguous parcels of real property. The appellee and the owner of the property adjacent to that of appellant, Larry Stancil, filed an answer and counterclaim in which he contended he held fee simple title to the property at issue. Consistent to 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/freecaselawaction=FCLRetrieveCaseDetail&amp.caseID=7&amp.format=FULL&amp.resultHandle=ae14b712d0559ea22a3d8054440e2522&amp.pageLimit=10&amp.xmlgTotalCount=89&amp.combinedSearchTerm=adverse+possession&amp.juriName=Georgia&amp.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

You Might Also Like