Nesmith v. Alsup

4 Citing cases

  1. Thomas v. Thomas

    No. W2016-01412-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2017)   Cited 2 times

    Id. "[O]ccupation of property by one cotenant is not generally regarded as adverse to the claim of another cotenant." England, 2012 WL 4503434, at *6 (citing NeSmith v. Alsup, No. 01A01-9809-CH00509, 1999 WL 557620, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 1999)). "Additionally, because possession by a tenant in common is regarded as possession by himself and all the other cotenants, the possession of one tenant in common is not ordinarily held to be exclusive."

  2. England v. England

    No. E2011-02094-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2012)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    An "'ouster does not necessarily mean a physical expulsion of one party by another, but it requires the party claiming adversely to perform some act that makes it clear to his cotenant that []he is being excluded from ownership.'" Id. (quoting NeSmith v. Alsup, No. 01A01-9809-CH00509, 1999 WL 557620, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 1999)). In Drewery v. Nelms, the Supreme Court explained ouster as follows:

  3. Elliott v. Elliott

    No. W2010-02085-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May. 4, 2011)   Cited 1 times

    An "`ouster does not necessarily mean a physical expulsion of one party by another, but it requires the party claiming adversely to perform some act that makes it clear to his cotenant that she is being excluded from ownership.'" Id. (quoting Nesmith v. Alsup, No. 01A01-9809-CH00509, 1999 WL 557620, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. M.S. Aug. 2, 1999)). Our Supreme Court has explained "ouster" as follows:

  4. Envision Properties v. Johnson

    No. E2005-00634-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2005)   Cited 2 times

    As this court has recently noted, "[a]n ouster does not necessarily mean a physical expulsion of one party by another, but it requires the party claiming adversely to perform some act that makes it clear to his cotenant that she is being excluded from ownership." Nesmith v. Alsup, No. 01A01-9809-CH00509, 1999 WL 557620 at *4 (Tenn.Ct.App. M.S., filed Aug. 2, 1999). The Tennessee Supreme Court has explained the concept of "ouster" as follows: