Curd v. Winecoff

9 Citing cases

  1. Rodgers v. Law Office of Kenneth T. Davies, P.C.

    2021 NCCOA 374 (N.C. Ct. App. 2021)

    "When the conclusions of law are unsupported by determinative facts, the case must be remanded to the trial court for further findings." Curd v. Winecoff, 88 N.C.App. 720, 722, 364 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1988). ¶ 11 "The general rule is that in making findings of fact, the trial court is required only to make brief, pertinent and definite findings and conclusions about the matters in issue."

  2. Woodring v. Swieter

    180 N.C. App. 362 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 25 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Concluding the plaintiff failed to establish "possession" of the property on which the trespass was alleged to have occurred where the plaintiff lacked a "legally recognized interest" in the land until he obtained title to the land six years after the trespass was committed

    "Once these elements are established, `an "easement from prior use" may be implied to "protect the probable expectations of the grantor and the grantee that an existing use of part of the land would continue after the transfer."'" Id. at 33, 493 S.E.2d at 490 (emphasis added) (quoting Curd v. Winecoff 88 N.C. App. 720, 724, 364 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1988)). Although it is unclear whether the common ownership element has been met, we need not address that issue because defendants have failed to forecast evidence sufficient to establish the latter two elements of an easement implied by prior use.

  3. Lancaster v. Maple St. Homeowners Assn

    156 N.C. App. 429 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that element of hostility was properly submitted to jury when evidence showed claimants felt disputed property was theirs, used property as their own and believed they had right to use it, never asked permission to use land or make improvements, and installed posts to keep people from parking on property

    To prove adverse possession, defendants must show "actual, open, hostile, exclusive, and continuous possession of the land claimed for the prescriptive period (seven years or twenty years) under known and visible lines and boundaries." Merrick v. Peterson, 143 N.C. App. 656, 663, 548 S.E.2d 171, 176, disc. rev. denied, 354 N.C. 364, 556 S.E.2d 572 (2001) (citing Curd v. Winecoff, 88 N.C. App. 720, 364 S.E.2d 730 (1988)). A. Actual, Open, and Continuous

  4. Hilliard v. Hilliard

    146 N.C. App. 709 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 6 times

    Rule 52(a) (1) does not require recitation of evidentiary facts, but it does require specific findings on the ultimate facts established by the evidence, admissions and stipulations which are determinative of the questions involved in the action and essential to support the conclusions of law reached. Curd v. Winecoff, 88 N.C. App. 720, 722, 364 S.E.2d 730, (1988) (citation omitted). "Where the trial court sits as trier of facts, the trial court must (1) find the facts on all issues joined in the pleadings, (2) declare the conclusions of law arising on the facts found, and (3) enter judgment accordingly."

  5. Merrick v. Peterson

    143 N.C. App. 656 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that where the plaintiff never actually possessed the property, her claim of adverse possession could not prevail

    Both of these theories of ownership require a minimum period of adverse possession. To acquire title to land by adverse possession, the claimant must show actual, open, hostile, exclusive, and continuous possession of the land claimed for the prescriptive period (seven years or twenty years) under known and visible lines and boundaries. Curd v. Winecoff, 88 N.C. App. 720, 364 S.E.2d 730 (1988); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-38 (1999); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-40 (1999). Successive adverse users in privity with prior adverse users can tack successive adverse possessions of land so as to aggregate the prescriptive period (twenty years or seven years).

  6. Tedder v. Alford

    128 N.C. App. 27 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 8 times

            (3) the claimed easement is 'necessary' to the use and enjoyment of the claimant's land. Curd v. Winecoff, 88 N.C.App. 720, 723, 364 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1988)(quoting Knott v. Washington Housing Authority, 70 N.C.App. 95, 98, 318 S.E.2d 861, 863 (1984)).        Once these elements are established, "[a]n 'easement from prior use' may be implied to 'protect the probable expectations of the grantor and the grantee that an existing use of part of the land would continue after the transfer.' "

  7. Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Wetherington

    127 N.C. App. 457 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 28 times

    In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 110-111, 316 S.E.2d 246, 252-253 (1984). In order to acquire title to land through adverse possession, a party must show actual, open, hostile, exclusive and continuous possession of the land claimed for twenty years under known and visible boundaries. Curd v. Winecoff, 88 N.C. App. 720, 722, 364 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1988). The trial court made the following extensive findings: (1) that the Wetheringtons had actual, exclusive and continuous possession for the statutory period; (2) that the Wetheringtons had exercised dominion over the premises and "generally engaged in activities consistent with the ownership of a rural home site;" and (3) that they had obtained three separate loans which were secured by deeds of trust on the residence tract.

  8. Beam v. Kerlee

    461 S.E.2d 911 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 24 times
    Recognizing that summary judgment is appropriate only when "there is no dispute as to any material fact"

    [3] Next, plaintiffs contend their motion for a directed verdict should have been granted as to defendant's claim to title by more than twenty years of adverse possession and as to defendant's claim that he acquired title by seven years of adverse possession under color of title. To acquire title to land by adverse possession, the claimant must show actual, open, hostile, exclusive, and continuous possession of the land claimed for twenty years under known and visible lines and boundaries. Curd v. Winecoff, 88 N.C. App. 720, 722, 364 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1988); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-40 (1983). Successive adverse users in privity with prior adverse users can tack successive adverse possessions of land so as to aggregate the prescriptive period of twenty years.

  9. Rollinwood Homeowners Assoc. v. Jarman

    375 S.E.2d 700 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 1 times

    A trial court's conclusions of law must be supported by the determinative facts as found by the trial court. See Curd v. Winecoff, 88 N.C. App. 720, 364 S.E.2d 730 (1988). The conclusions of law must in turn support the judgment as rendered by the trial court.