As Mr. Johnston acknowledges, a finding of adverse possession is a prerequisite to a finding of champerty. See Foust v. Metcalf, 338 S.W.3d 457, 464 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). As this Court explained in Foust:
Without adverse possession, the law of champerty does not apply, as adverse possession is an essential element of the law of champerty. This requirement was recently discussed in the case of Foust v. Metcalf, et al., 338 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn.Ct.App.2010). In Foust, this Court applied the law of champerty to dismiss a suit by plaintiff, the subsequent purchaser of the disputed property, to quiet title to a narrow strip of land along the parties' common boundary.
In Tennessee, a deed is void for champerty when the seller is not in actual possession of the property at the time of the conveyance. Foust v. Metcalf, 338 S.W.3d 457, 463 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-4-202). As this court explained,
. 2003) (''[t]he evidence presented in support of adverse possession must be strictly construed'' with every presumption against party claiming adverse possession); Maddock v. Higgins, 176 N.H. 182, 191, 307 A.3d 1104 (2023) (''[w]hen evaluating the merits of an adverse possession claim, courts must strictly construe the evidence of adverse possession''); Crown Credit Co., Ltd. v. Bushman, 170 Ohio App.3d 807, 818, 869 N.E.2d 83 (2007) (''adverse possession is disfavored'' and must be strictly construed); Harris v. Southeast Portland Lumber Co., 123 Or. 549, 557, 262 P. 243 (1927) (''[e]vidence of adverse possession is always to be construed strictly'' (internal quotation marks omitted)); King v. Hawkins, 282 S.C. 508, 511, 319 S.E.2d 361 (App. 1984) (''[t]he doctrine of adverse possession must be strictly construed in favor of the owner of the title to land''); Gangle v. Spiry, 916 N.W.2d 119, 125 (S.D. 2018) (evidence is strictly construed against party claiming adverse possession); Foust v. Metcalf, 338 S.W.3d 457, 466 (Tenn.App. 2010) (''[e]vidence of adverse possession is strictly construed and any presumption is in favor of the holder of the legal title''); Hollingsworth v. Williamson, 300 S.W.2d 194, 198 (Tex. Civ. App. 1957) (''the evidence of adverse possession must be clear and positive, and should be strictly construed''); Lindokken v. Paulson, 224 Wis. 470, 475, 272 N.W. 453 (1937) (''[t]he rule is that the evidence of adverse possession must be positive, must be strictly construed against the person claiming a prescriptive right, and that every reasonable intendment should be made in favor of the true owner'').
Id.Foust v. Metcalf, 338 S.W.3d 457, 462-63 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). As provided by statute:
Under Tennessee law, "'[w]here a portion of the land is in actual adverse possession, the party so holding has constructive possession of all the premises outside of his inclosure to the limits of his claim or assurance of title.'" Foust v. Metcalf, 338 S.W.3d 457, 465 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Green v. Cumberland Coal & Coke Co., 72 S.W.3d 459, 460 (Tenn. 1903)).
2005); Aaron v. Aaron, 909 S.W.2d 408, 410 (Tenn. 1995); Foust v. Metcalf, 338 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010); Newman v. Woodard, 288 S.W.3d 862, 865 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). A. Is the Gate a Fixture or Is It Personalty?