Savely v. Bridges

11 Citing cases

  1. Barrios v. Simpkins

    No. M2021-01347-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2022)   Cited 5 times
    Finding that the appellees waived their request for attorney’s fees by failing to include a separate statement of the issues in their responsive brief, despite including the issue in their briefs table of contents

    Savely v. Bridges, 57 Tenn.App. 372, 418 S.W.2d 472, 479 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967). Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-2-102 provides a defense when there is assurance of title and seven years possession; this statute serves as protection as to the entire boundary as described.

  2. Cumulus Broadcasting, Inc. v. Shim

    226 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn. 2007)   Cited 135 times
    Holding that a motion to amend should have been fully considered under the precedent set in Henderson, but the issue was ultimately harmless because the trial court did partially rule on the motion and the portion not considered was "at least temporarily of no consequence"

    These rights may be utilized by the adverse holder only in the defense of a suit and not as a means to bar use by the rightful owner. Savely v. Bridges, 57 Tenn.App. 372, 418 S.W.2d 472, 479 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1967). Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-2-102 provides a defense when there is assurance of title and seven years possession; this statute serves as protection as to the entire boundary as described.

  3. Franklin Square Towne Homeowners Ass'n Inc. v. Kyles

    No. W2016-02018-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May. 10, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    These rights may be utilized by the adverse holder only in the defense of a suit and not as a means to bar use by the rightful owner. Savely v. Bridges, 57 Tenn. App. 372, 418 S.W.2d 472, 479 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967). . . . Section

  4. Frinks v. Horvath

    No. E2016-00944-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2017)   Cited 2 times

    These rights may be utilized by the adverse holder only in the defense of a suit and not as a means to bar use by the rightful owner. Slavely v. Bridges, 57 Tenn. App. 372, 418 S.W.2d 472, 479 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967). Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-2-102 provides a defense when there is assurance of title and seven years possession; this statute serves as protection as to the entire boundary as described.

  5. Phelps v. Benke

    No. M2015-02212-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2017)   Cited 4 times

    These rights may be utilized by the adverse holder only in the defense of a suit and not as a means to bar use by the rightful owner. Savely v. Bridges, 57 Tenn. App. 372, 418 S.W.2d 472, 479 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967). Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-2-102 provides a defense when there is assurance of title and seven years possession; this statute serves as protection as to the entire boundary as described.

  6. 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

    These rights may be utilized by the adverse holder only in the defense of a suit and not as a means to bar use by the rightful owner. Slavely v. Bridges, 57 Tenn. App. 372, 418 S.W.2d 472, 479 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967). Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-2-102 provides a defense when there is assurance of title and seven years possession; this statute serves as protection as to the entire boundary as described.

  7. Butler v. Still

    No. M2009-01729-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2010)   Cited 1 times

    Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-105. If the claimant can establish both of these essential elements, the statute "has the effect of vesting absolutely the legal title to the land in the person holding adverse possession thereof during the period of limitation fixed by the statute (seven years) and under assurance of title registered for a period of thirty years." Savely v. Bridges, 418 S.W.2d 472, 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967). We will first examine whether Plaintiff established a claim to the 5 acres in dispute based on a conveyance of record in the register's office of Rutherford County for a period of at least 30 years, commonly referred to as color of title.

  8. Ball v. McDowell

    No. E2007-00519-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2008)

    These rights may be utilized by the adverse holder only in the defense of a suit and not as a means to bar use by the rightful owner. Savely v. Bridges, 57 Tenn. App. 372, 418 S.W.2d 472, 479 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1967). Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-2-102 provides a defense when there is assurance of title and seven years possession; this statute serves as protection as to the entire boundary as described.

  9. Earps v. Earps

    Appeal No. 01-A-01-9505-CH-00206 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 1995)

    Tuggle v. Southern Ry. Co., 140 Tenn. 275, 204 S.W. 857 (1918). For the view that Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-103 can be used only as a defense, see Moore v. Brannan, 42 Tenn. App. 542, 304 S.W.2d 660 (1957) and Savely v. Bridges, 57 Tenn. App. 372, 418 S.W.2d 472 (1967). As in the action claiming title by adverse possession, however, to establish the defense provided in Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-103, the possession must be adverse and not permissive. Pyron v. Colbert, 46 Tenn. App. 287, 328 S.W.2d 825 (1959).

  10. Foster v. Hill

    510 S.W.2d 520 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 10 times

    That defense to a forcible entry is allowable because T.C.A. § 28-203 does not vest title in an adverse holder, but rather it sets up a defense when another party seeks to dispossess the adverse holder. Savely v. Bridges (1967) 57 Tenn. App. 372, 418 S.W.2d 472. In Liberto v. Steele (1949) 188 Tenn. 529, 221 S.W.2d 701, the Court held it to be a rule of property that when a purchaser of land accidentally or by mistake encloses a contiguous strip, believing he is placing the fence on the boundary line, and holds the enclosed strip for seven years, his possession is adverse, and will avail against the true owner, citing: Erck v. Church (1889) 87 Tenn. 575, 11 S.W. 794; Williams v. Hewitt (1913) 128 Tenn. 689, 164 S.W. 1198.