Hi-Fort, Inc. v. Burnette

4 Citing cases

  1. Sheets v. Sheets

    57 N.C. App. 336 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 4 times

    Nor is it necessary to discuss appellants' evidentiary questions. This case falls squarely under the rule enunciated in Mott v. Land Co., 146 N.C. 525, 60 S.E. 423 (1908), as applied in Hi-Fort, Inc. v. Burnette, 42 N.C. App. 428, 257 S.E.2d 85 (1979). Hi-Fort states that "where the party claiming adversely was found to have recognized the cotenancy by, in previous years, having bought . . . shares of the property from the heirs of the party through whom all were claiming title," the presumption of ouster will not arise. 42 N.C. App. at 435, 257 S.E.2d at 90.

  2. Wachovia Bank of N.C. v. Weeks

    149 N.C. App. 234 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002)

    In order for this presumption to arise, "the sole possession for 20 years must have continued without any acknowledgment on the possessor's part of title in his co-tenant." Hi-Fort, Inc. v. Burnette, 42 N.C. App. 428, 434, 257 S.E.2d 85, 90 (1979). Here, aside from the period in 1950 when defendant first took possession of the disputed tract, there was no express or active acknowledgment by defendant of shared title with any co-tenant during the ensuing thirty-six years, 1950 to 1986.

  3. Herbert v. Babson

    74 N.C. App. 519 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 3 times

    Collier v. Walker, supra. However, if the tenant in possession does anything to recognize title of the cotenants during the twenty-year period, the presumption of ouster does not arise. Mott v. Land Company, 146 N.C. 525, 60 S.E. 423 (1908); Sheets v. Sheets, supra; Hi-Fort, Inc. v. Burnette, 42 N.C. App. 428, 257 S.E.2d 85 (1979). We hold that the listing of the property for county taxes in the name of the "Heirs of Henry Herbert" which includes all tenants in common, and the payment of taxes and insurance premiums by all the tenants in common are acts sufficient to show recognition of the title of the petitioners by the respondent appellees so as to prevent the presumption of constructive ouster from arising.

  4. Ellis v. Poe

    73 N.C. App. 448 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 5 times

    The forecast of evidence does not show that Napoleon was made aware of the alleged cotenancy. Indeed, two years later, without seeking the joinder of any cotenants, Napoleon conveyed outright another four acre tract to Grover Ellis. This outright conveyance tends to indicate that he did not acknowledge the cotenancy two years earlier. Hence, unlike Hi-Fort, Inc. v. Burnette, 42 N.C. App. 428, 257 S.E.2d 85 (1979) and Sheets v. Sheets, 57 N.C. App. 336, 291 S.E.2d 300, disc. rev. denied, 306 N.C. 559, 294 S.E.2d 371 (1982), there was no express or active acknowledgment of a cotenancy by the possessor, Napoleon Ellis. Further, the events surrounding execution of these conveyances occurred several years after the requisite twenty year period had expired, and in no event did these actions constitute an acknowledgment of cotenancy by Napoleon Ellis. The ouster thus had already occurred, having taken effect as of the initial date of Napoleon's taking of possession. Collier v. Welker, supra.