Halpern v. THE LACY INVEST. CORP.
379 S.E.2d 519 · Supreme Court of Georgia · 1989
Facts
Lacy, a corporation, holds title to a parcel of land that Halpern claims to own by adverse possession. The parcel is located at the rear of Halpern’s residential lot, which was purchased in 1959 with a residence built in 1960. The Halperns desired the parcel for their backyard, and Mr. Halpern offered to purchase it from Lacy’s predecessor in title, but the offer was refused. Knowing they did not own the land, the Halperns proceeded to bulldoze, clear, and incorporate the parcel into their yard. They have continuously used the land since that time.
Procedural history
A jury found against Halpern’s adverse possession claim and in favor of Lacy’s counterclaims for damages for slander of title, trespass, and litigation expenses. Halpern appealed from the judgment entered on this verdict. The case reached this court (Supreme Court of Georgia) on appeal from that judgment.
Issue
The main issue on appeal is whether a claim of right must be made in good faith to satisfy the adverse possession requirement, or if hostile possession alone is sufficient. The court also considered whether an attorney testifying solely about attorney fees must be listed as a witness or is incompetent to testify.
Holding
The court held that a good faith claim of right is a necessary element for adverse possession, affirming the trial court's instruction. The court also held that an attorney testifying only about attorney fees does not violate competency rules and does not need to be listed as a witness. The judgment was affirmed.
Rule
For adverse possession, one must enter upon the land claiming in good faith the right to do so; entering without an honest claim of right constitutes trespass and cannot ripen into prescriptive title. While hostile possession can serve as evidence of a good faith claim of right, it does not negate the requirement of good faith itself. The court clarified that prior rulings stating hostile possession and claim of right are legal equivalents mean that hostile possession can infer good faith, not that good faith is unnecessary. An attorney is competent to testify solely about attorney fees, as this knowledge is not acquired from the client, and does not need to be listed as a witness in the pre-trial order.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.