{ "id": 9082078, "name": "DANIEL B. CARTIN, SR., Plaintiff v. SHUFORD EDWARD HARRISON and wife, RENEE EDMISTON HARRISON, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Cartin v. Harrison", "decision_date": "2002-08-06", "docket_number": "No. COA01-820", "first_page": "697", "last_page": "704", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "151 N.C. App. 697" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "442 S.E.2d 493", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "336 N.C. 284", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2539559 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/336/0284-01" ] }, { "cite": "294 S.E.2d 207", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 383", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569441, 8569354, 8569266, 8569395, 8569304 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0383-05", "/nc/306/0383-03", "/nc/306/0383-01", "/nc/306/0383-04", "/nc/306/0383-02" ] }, { "cite": "291 S.E.2d 174", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "176", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 N.C. App. 84", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522099 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "88", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/57/0084-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 S.E.2d 519", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "521", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 165", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562844 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "167", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0165-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 S.E.2d 703", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1952, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "706" }, { "page": "705" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 N.C. 550", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625975 ], "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/235/0550-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 S.E. 142", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1889, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 N.C. 112", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650704 ], "year": 1889, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/104/0112-01" ] }, { "cite": "556 S.E.2d 577", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "354 N.C. 365", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 138470, 138323, 138489, 138494, 138495 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/354/0365-03", "/nc/354/0365-04", "/nc/354/0365-02", "/nc/354/0365-01", "/nc/354/0365-05" ] }, { "cite": "651 S.E.2d 160", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 3799269 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "163" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga-app/287/0215-01" ] }, { "cite": "144 N.C. App. 623", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11436228 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "628" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/144/0623-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 703, "char_count": 16539, "ocr_confidence": 0.772, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.144033529635148e-07, "percentile": 0.9670893940148634 }, "sha256": "c3759cb64a6021fd548953f2a6c46042bfb55bd9052aeaff27a366dbfe1e9118", "simhash": "1:c3692c005c2766d8", "word_count": 2714 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:47:19.620477+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges TYSON and THOMAS concur." ], "parties": [ "DANIEL B. CARTIN, SR., Plaintiff v. SHUFORD EDWARD HARRISON and wife, RENEE EDMISTON HARRISON, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Judge.\nThis appeal arises out of a real property boundary dispute originally between Daniel B. Cartin and defendants Shuford Edward Harrison and Renee Edmiston Harrison, each of whom claimed superior title to approximately seven acres of land. Cartin filed a complaint on 19 May 1995, seeking a judgment declaring him owner of the property, \u201cfree from the claim of the Defendants.\u201d Defendants filed an answer, counterclaim, and cross-claim, seeking a declaration that they were the owners of the disputed property. On 3 March 1998, the trial court granted Cartin\u2019s motion to join Donald and Ann Smart, who purchased the property from plaintiff and who are now the real parties in interest (hereinafter, \u201cplaintiffs\u201d). Following a pre-trial conference, the trial court entered a consent order which provided that the court \u201cshall hear only issues related to plaintiffs\u2019 assertion that it has superior record title to the property in dispute by reason of a connected chain of title to the State of North Carolina.\u201d The parties agreed to bifurcate the trial, allowing defendants \u201cthe opportunity, if necessary, to prosecute their counterclaims at a future jury session of Watauga County District Court,\u201d and, if necessary, to pursue defendants\u2019 cross-claim against third-party defendants.\nAfter the parties waived their rights to a jury trial on the issue of whether plaintiffs could establish a connected chain of title to the State of North Carolina, the trial court heard evidence at a bench trial. Plaintiffs based their claim of superior title upon a series of conveyances originating in three grants from the State of North Carolina. Defendants acknowledge that plaintiffs proved a connected chain of title from themselves back to John Storie and from William Storie to the State; however, defendants challenge plaintiffs\u2019 proof that a valid connection in the chain of title was established between William Storie and John Storie. With respect to that link in the chain, plaintiffs offered evidence of a proceeding to partition the \u201clanded estate of Wm. A. Storie.\u201d The evidence included a document which stated that it was \u201c[t]he foregoing Reports of the Jurors who laid and partitioned real estate of Wm. Storie Dec. [deceased] among his heirs at law on 15th day of June 1880 . . . .\u201d and it allotted to John Storie a parcel of land from the William A. Storie property, and provided a legal description of that parcel. Plaintiffs\u2019 expert, Joseph M. Parker, Jr., testified that all deeds in plaintiffs\u2019 chain of title were valid deeds, and that the documents, taken together, established a complete chain of title. Parker stated the partition proceeding report \u201cdoes include the property in question. And although it may not be a deed, it does, I think, convey, pass on the title.\u201d On cross-examination, Parker admitted that the partition proceeding documents do not indicate whether all heirs of William Storie were included in the partition proceeding, and that if an individual heir was not included in the proceeding, the partition proceeding would not be effective. Nevertheless, Parker stated that the possibility of a challenge to the partition was \u201cremote,\u201d and that he \u201cwould pass on titles where you may not have all the heirs but you feel reasonably assured that you did, particularly if it\u2019s this old.\u201d Parker stated that plaintiffs had established \u201cgood title.\u201d Following completion of the plaintiffs\u2019 evidence, defendants presented evidence, including the testimony of two licensed surveyors, Lewis Cox and James Murray Gray; neither surveyor, however, conducted surveys of the parties\u2019 respective properties.\nThe trial court found facts, concluded that plaintiffs had established \u201ca legally sufficient chain of title back to the State of North Carolina, and Plaintiffs\u2019 title to the disputed property is superior to Defendants;\u201d and entered judgment declaring plaintiffs to be the owners in fee simple of the property. Defendants submitted to a voluntary dismissal without prejudice as to their counter-claim and gave notice of appeal.\nThe standard of review on appeal from a judgment entered after a non-jury trial is \u201cwhether there is competent evidence to support the trial court\u2019s findings of fact and whether the findings support the conclusions of law and ensuing judgment.\u201d Sessler v. Marsh, 144 N.C. App. 623, 628, 651 S.E.2d 160, 163, disc. review denied, 354 N.C. 365, 556 S.E.2d 577 (2001).\nDefendants first contend the trial court erred in holding that plaintiffs proved an unbroken chain of title from the State of North Carolina. A party may establish good title to real property by several methods, one of which involves proof of a connected chain of title from the party to the State of North Carolina. Mobley v. Griffin, 104 N.C. 112, 10 S.E. 142 (1889). Defendants concede in their brief to this Court that plaintiffs have proved a connected chain of title from themselves back to John Storie and from William Storie to the State. Defendants argue, however, that plaintiffs did not establish a valid connection in the chain of title between William Storie and John Storie.\nThe documentary evidence offered by plaintiffs included a \u201cdecree for partition,\u201d signed by \u201cJ.H. Hardin, CSC, Probate Judge\u201d; a \u201cpartition\u201d of the \u201clanded estate of Wm. A. Storie,\u201d which specifically allotted to John Storie a parcel of land from the Wm. A. Storie property, and described that parcel; and a report of the partition by the \u201cduly appointed\u201d commissioners, which stated,\nThe foregoing Reports of the Jurors who laid and partitioned real estate of Wm. Storie Dec. [deceased] among his heirs at law on 15th day of June 1880 is enrolled and together with the Judgment and decree confirming the same is hereby certified to the Register of Deeds of Watauga County and ordered to be registered in the Register\u2019s office of said county (emphasis added).\nThe report was dated 29 June 1880 and signed by \u201cJ.H. Hardin, CSC, Probate Judge.\u201d Plaintiffs\u2019 expert, Joseph M. Parker, Jr., testified that all deeds in plaintiffs\u2019 chain of title were valid deeds, and that the documents established a complete chain of title. Parker also testified regarding the connection in the chain from William Storie to John Storie. Parker stated that the Commissioner\u2019s report \u201cdoes include the property in question. And although it may not be a deed, it does, I think, convey, pass on the title.\u201d In fact, pressed on cross-examination about whether the documents from the partition proceeding indicated that all heirs of William Storie had been included, Parker stated that the chances of a challenge to the partition were \u201cremote,\u201d and that plaintiffs had established \u201cgood title\u201d on the basis of \u201cthis document and the full chain of title.\u201d Parker explained,\nif you go back into the 1880s and 1890s and you worry about every time something may not have been procedurally correct in accordance with the procedural rules at that time and there may have been a missing heir, we wouldn\u2019t have many good titles.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 chain of title is distinguishable from the title found defective in McDonald v. McCrummen, 235 N.C. 550, 70 S.E.2d 703 (1952), cited by defendants in support of their contention that plaintiffs\u2019 chain was incomplete. In McDonald, land was granted by the State of North Carolina to Aaron Murchison, and years later an \u201cO.B. Murchison\u201d purported to convey this same land through a deed to the plaintiff. There was no evidence, however, that O.B. Murchison was an heir to Aaron Murchison or that he otherwise acquired title from Aaron Murchison:\nIt may be that O. B. Murchison is the heir, or an heir of the first, and as such could maintain an action against a third party to recover the land, [citation omitted] but the testimony of plaintiff is that \u201cI do not know what kin O. B. Murchison was to A. A. Murchison, \u2014 they were some of my own people.\u201d Titles to land may not rest in so thin veil of uncertainty.\nId. at 553, 70 S.E.2d at 706. In McDonald, because the plaintiff provided no documentation of a conveyance from Aaron Murchison to O.B. Murchison, there was an actual break in the chain from the State to the plaintiff. As the Supreme Court explained, \u201cthe trouble with this effort is that it does not connect.\u201d Id. at 553, 70 S.E.2d at 705.\nIn the present case, by contrast, the partition proceeding is one of a series of documents conveying the land originally owned by the State and currently owned by plaintiffs. The partition proceeding states that the landed estate of William Storie, deceased, was to be divided among his heirs at law, which included John Storie. The trial court found facts establishing the chain of title and concluded as a matter of law: \u201cPlaintiffs\u2019 [sic] have a legally sufficient chain of title back to the State of North Carolina, and Plaintiffs\u2019 title to the disputed property is superior to Defendants.\u201d Unlike the plaintiff\u2019s chain in McDonald, the partition proceeding conveyance in the present plaintiffs\u2019 chain connected the title from William Storie to his heir at law, John Storie. Defendants concede plaintiffs in the present case provided a connected chain from the State to William Storie, and from John Storie to plaintiffs. Thus, we affirm the trial court\u2019s conclusion that plaintiffs have established a connected chain of title to an original grant from the State of North Carolina, superior to defendants\u2019 title, Mobley v. Griffin, supra, and defendants assignments of error to the contrary are overruled.\nIn their second argument, defendants assert the trial court erred in holding that plaintiffs proved that the property described in their current deed is included within the descriptions in each of the documents comprising their chain of title. Where title to land is in dispute, the \u201cclaimant must show that the area claimed lies within the area described in each conveyance in his chain of title and he must fit the description contained in his deed to the land claimed.\u201d Cutis v. Casey, 271 N.C. 165, 167, 155 S.E.2d 519, 521 (1967) (citations omitted). Nevertheless,\n[t]he fact that the descriptions in deeds forming the chain of title are not identical is not material if the differing language may in fact fit the same body of land, and if it is apparent from an examination of the descriptions in the several deeds that the respective grantors intended to convey the identical land, effect will be given to the intent.\nE. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Moore, 57 N.C. App. 84, 88, 291 S.E.2d 174, 176, cert. denied, 306 N.C. 383, 294 S.E.2d 207 (1982) (citation omitted).\nThe trial court made the following findings of fact:\n29. Plaintiffs\u2019 expert witness, surveyor Frank Hayes, has located the subject property and all of the properties within Plaintiffs\u2019 chain of title on the earth\u2019s surface by reliance, inter alia, on the following:\na. All documents in Plaintiffs [sic] chain of title as reflected in the public records;\nb. Various documents in the chains of title of surrounding property owners;\nc. Various unrecorded maps relating to the subject property;\nd. Location of physical monuments on the ground, being those reflected on the various surveys, maps and charts entered into evidence;\ne. Location of a ridge (as described in Grant 1050);\nf. Location of Grants 119 on the ground (adjacent to Plaintiffs\u2019 property on the western boundary), and reliance on consistent calls between Grant 119 and Plaintiffs\u2019 Grants;\ng. Use of aerial photographs depicting use of Plaintiffs\u2019 property in the 1940\u2019s and 1950\u2019s; h. Location of marked trees along the northern boundaries of Grant 33;\nIn addition, the trial court found that all of the disputed property \u201cis included in Plaintiffs\u2019 Property,\u201d but that the legal description of defendants\u2019 property does not include \u201call of the disputed land.\u201d\nFrank Hayes, who was permitted to testify as an expert witness in the field of land surveying, testified that he was familiar with every legal description in plaintiffs\u2019 chain of title. First, Hayes testified that the three most recent deeds in plaintiffs\u2019 chain of title had the same legal description. The 1885 deed, conveying the parcel of land from John Storie to J.B. Storie, was \u201cvery similar\u201d to the later descriptions, according to Hayes. Referring to the deed, dated 9 December 1885, Hayes stated, \u201cIt is my opinion that it is the intent of the Cartin deed to convey the same property that is shown here.\u201d Hayes testified that he discovered a \u201cvery good description\u201d in the partition proceeding documents from William Storie to John Storie. Hayes also reviewed the description in Grant 1050 from the State of North Carolina, dated 27 November 1880, as well as the deed from Joshua Storie to William Storie. Joshua Storie acquired his land from two grants from the State of North Carolina, Grant 33 and Grant 3676, which is referred to as the \u201cRich Hillside Tract.\u201d Hayes testified that he was able to use the description of Grant 3676 to locate the Rich Hillside Tract on the ground, in spite of the fact that he did not find comers in the Tract based on specific existing \u201cmonumentation\u201d:\nNow, you\u2019ve got to understand that the Rich Hillside Tract was laid out in \u2014 there are stumps in the woods and to say that there\u2019s not a stump close to the northeast corner of the Rich Hillside Tract \u2014 there are stumps, but again, these are monuments that were in existence in 1833 and/or 1835 \u2014 anyway, in the 1830s. That would [sic] \u2014 165 years plus.\nHayes testified that the description in plaintiffs\u2019 deed \u201cfits into the composite of the deeds of the back title.\u201d\nDefendants\u2019 evidence included the testimony of Lewis Cox, a licensed surveyor. Cox did not undertake a survey of the parties\u2019 respective properties; instead, Cox merely reviewed existing surveys prepared by the parties. Further, James Murray Gray, also a licensed surveyor employed by defendants, testified that he did not conduct a survey of either plaintiffs\u2019 property or defendants\u2019 property, but rather conducted surveys of adjoining properties. In fact, Gray stated that he had no opinion as to who owned the overlapping area which was the subject of the cause of action.\nThe weight and credibility to be accorded the testimony of each of these witnesses was for the trial court as fact finder. Scott v. Scott, 336 N.C. 284, 442 S.E.2d 493 (1994). The trial court\u2019s findings that the disputed property could be located within the description of plaintiffs\u2019 property going back through plaintiffs\u2019 chain of title is supported by competent evidence and those findings support its conclusion that the location of the disputed property on the ground is as reflected on the surveys done by Walter McCracken and Frank Hayes. Defendants\u2019 assignments of error are overruled.\nBecause we determine plaintiffs have established superior chain of title using the traditional method of connecting the chain to a grant from the State of North Carolina, and have presented sufficient evidence to locate the property on the ground, we need not reach defendants\u2019 remaining assignments of error.\nAffirmed.\nJudges TYSON and THOMAS concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Di Santi Watson & Capua, by Anthony S. di Santi and Andrea N. Capua, for plaintiff-appellees.", "McElwee Firm, PLLC, by John M. Logsdon, for defendant-appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DANIEL B. CARTIN, SR., Plaintiff v. SHUFORD EDWARD HARRISON and wife, RENEE EDMISTON HARRISON, Defendants\nNo. COA01-820\n(Filed 6 August 2002)\n1. Real Property\u2014 chain of title \u2014 1880 partition report\nThe trial court did not err in a non-jury trial to determine ownership of land by holding that plaintiffs proved an unbroken chain of title where defendants pointed to an 1880 partition report that did not indicate whether all of the relevant heirs were included in the proceeding. The partition proceeding connected the relevant parties in the chain of title, and plaintiffs expert testified that the deeds and documents established a complete chain of title with little chance of a challenge to the partition.\n2. Real Property\u2014 findings \u2014 location\u2014within chain of title descriptions\nIn a non-jury trial to determine ownership of a tract of land, competent evidence supported the trial court\u2019s findings that the disputed property could be located within the description of plaintiffs property going back through plaintiffs\u2019 chain of title. Those findings support the conclusion that the location of the property is as shown in surveys.\nAppeal by defendants from judgment entered 21 June 1998 by Judge William A. Leavell in Watauga County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 March 2002.\nDi Santi Watson & Capua, by Anthony S. di Santi and Andrea N. Capua, for plaintiff-appellees.\nMcElwee Firm, PLLC, by John M. Logsdon, for defendant-appellants." }, "file_name": "0697-01", "first_page_order": 727, "last_page_order": 734 }