Foust v. Metcalf

7 Citing cases

  1. Vincent v. Johnston

    No. E2013-00588-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2014)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-103 and despite no color of title, the defendant had established the defense of adverse possession to the extent that his improvements had adversely encroached upon the plaintiff's property for a period of at least seven years

    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:

  2. Milledgeville United Methodist Church v. Melton

    388 S.W.3d 280 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 12 times

    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.

  3. Kellerman v. Gabriel

    No. M2019-01893-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2021)

    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,

  4. Mulvey v. Palo

    AC 46383 (Conn. App. Ct. Jul. 2, 2024)

    . 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'').

  5. Harber v. Dixon

    No. E2019-00028-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2019)

    Id.Foust v. Metcalf, 338 S.W.3d 457, 462-63 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). As provided by statute:

  6. Cass Rye & Assocs. v. Coleman

    No. M2011-01738-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sep. 13, 2012)   Cited 3 times

    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)).

  7. Keenan v. Fodor

    No. M2011-01475-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2012)   Cited 3 times

    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?