The Vault - Questions and Answers

DATE:	07/31/01
SUBJECT/TOPIC:	COLOR OF TITLE
	Q:	"A" conveyed by warranty deed the front 150 feet of Lots 1, 2, and 3 to "B." A few months later "A" conveyed by warranty deed the back portion of Lots 1, 2, and 3 to "C" along with Lots 4 and 5. A few months later "A" executed and recorded a Deed of Correction of the original deed to "B" which purported to correct the description in "B's" deed to include all of Lots 1, 2, and 3. "B's" successor in title built a house which encroached approximately three (3) feet onto "C's" land and mowed a strip approximately five (5) feet wide on that side of the house for more than twenty (20) years. "C" had no knowledge of the encroachment or the deed of correction until "B's" later successor in title began clearing more of the land owned by "C." "B's" subsequent chain of title to the present owner contains a quit claim deed, which may be of importance. "C's" subsequent chain of title includes only warranty deeds. Plaintiff, successor in title to "C," filed Complaint To Establish Boundary Line in Chancery Court and established superior title to the property. Defendant, successor in title to "B," argued that "B's" successor in title had "color of title" and possessed the eight (8) foot strip for more than twenty (20) years (tacking ownership) and that the Tennessee courts have held similar facts to be construed as an "interlap" and possession of a portion of the interlap is sufficient to possess the whole. Questions: 1. Does "color of title" require warranty deeds in the chain of title? 2. Does the possession of a portion of one of several parcels of property in dispute constitute possession of the whole such that adverse possession would lie for the entire parcel if proven for the portion only? 3. Any other arguments in favor of the Plaintiff would be appreciated.
	A:	Your case has some interesting issues. A quitclaim deed cannot give color of title, but I'm not sure that the presence of such deeds in the chain is fatal to a color of title claim. When there is color of title, possession of part of a unitary tract can amount to possession of the whole. There must be a reasonable proportion, however, between the part possessed and the whole. A reasonable proportion is one that puts the owner on notice of the extent of the claim. Three other possible arguments occur to me. First, depending on the language of the correction deed, maybe it amounted to a quitclaim. Did it warrant title to the land that had already been conveyed to C? Second, cases have held that, at least in urban areas, activities like mowing are not sufficient to constitute adverse possession and that enclosure is required. See Miles v. Nelson, 23 TAM 45-10 (Tenn. App., Sept. 30, 1998). Finally, a grantee must act in good faith for there to be color of title. Do the facts indicate good faith? Good luck. I'd be interested in knowing how things turn out.
		Prev	Home	Next

"A" conveyed by warranty deed the front 150 feet of Lots 1, 2, and 3 to "B." A few months later "A" conveyed by warranty deed the back portion of Lots 1, 2, and 3 to "C" along with Lots 4 and 5. A few months later "A" executed and recorded a Deed of Correction of the original deed to "B" which purported to correct the description in "B's" deed to include all of Lots 1, 2, and 3. "B's" successor in title built a house which encroached approximately three (3) feet onto "C's" land and mowed a strip approximately five (5) feet wide on
that side of the house for more than twenty (20) years. "C" had no knowledge of the encroachment or the deed of correction until "B's" later successor in title began clearing more of the land owned by "C." "B's" subsequent chain of title to the present owner contains a quit claim deed, which may be of importance. "C's" subsequent chain of title includes only warranty deeds.

Plaintiff, successor in title to "C," filed Complaint To Establish Boundary Line in Chancery Court and established superior title to the property.

Defendant, successor in title to "B," argued that "B's" successor in title had "color of title" and possessed the eight (8) foot strip for more than twenty (20) years (tacking ownership) and that the Tennessee courts have held similar facts to be construed as an "interlap" and possession of a portion of the interlap is sufficient to possess the whole.

Questions:
1. Does "color of title" require warranty deeds in the chain of title?

2. Does the possession of a portion of one of several parcels of property in dispute constitute possession of the whole such that adverse possession would lie for the entire
parcel if proven for the portion only?