Case Law Caraway v. Spillers

Caraway v. Spillers

Document Cited Authorities (9) Cited in (2) Related

Pasley & Nuce, Adam Richard Nagel, Barnesville, for Appellants.

Smith, Welch, Webb & White, Larry Scott Mayfield, McDonough, for Appellee.

Opinion

BRANCH, Judge.

Phillip and Wendy Caraway and Matt Toland Spillers have deeds to the same property. Spillers filed suit to cancel the Caraway deed and for declaratory relief, and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Spillers because Spillers recorded his deed first. On appeal, the Caraways contend that there is an issue of fact as to whether their possession of the property put Spillers on notice of their claim of title to the property. We agree and reverse.

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9–11–56(c). We review a grant or denial of summary judgment de novo and construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Home Builders Assn. of Savannah v. Chatham County, 276 Ga. 243, 245(1), 577 S.E.2d 564 (2003).

Construed in favor of the Caraways, the record shows that Nettie Spillers is the mother of Spillers and the grandmother of Wendy Caraway; Spillers is Wendy Caraway's uncle. In 1998, Nettie deeded two acres of real property to the Caraways. Immediately upon obtaining the deed, the Caraways went into possession of the property, placed a manufactured home on the property, and began to maintain their residence on the property. The Caraways did not, however, record the deed at that time. The Caraways “openly, peaceably and notoriously” lived on and maintained the property from 1988 until approximately 2011, a period of approximately 23 years. During that time, Spillers was fully aware that the Caraways lived on the property. In fact, Spillers visited the property at least once a year through the date this civil action was filed.

On April 11, 2003, Nettie deeded the same two acres of real property to Spillers, and Spillers caused the deed to be recorded three days later. Spillers avers that at the time, he was unaware of the existence of the Caraway deed. The Caraway deed was finally recorded on May 15, 2003, approximately one month after Spillers recorded his deed.

On February 4, 2011, Spillers filed a verified complaint seeking cancellation of the Caraway deed, a declaration that he is the true and lawful owner of the property, and attorney fees. The Caraways filed a verified answer and raised certain defenses, including that they had acquired title by adverse possession.

Following discovery and a hearing on Spillers's motion for summary judgment, the trial court found as a matter of fact that although the Caraway deed preceded the Spillers deed, it was not recorded until after the execution and recording of the Spillers deed. The court then concluded that as a consequence of being recorded after the Spillers deed, the Caraway deed was null and void. The court therefore granted the motion for summary judgment and declared that Spillers had a fee simple interest in the property free and clear of any claim by the Caraways. The Caraways appeal.

It is true that in Georgia, “a prior unrecorded deed loses its priority over a subsequent recorded deed from the same vendor when the purchaser takes such deed without notice of the existence of the prior deed.” OCGA § 44–2–1. But it is also true that [p]ossession of land shall constitute notice of the rights or title of the occupant.” OCGA § 44–5–169. And such notice “is not limited, as notice, to what would be discovered by an examination of the public records.” Wren v. Wren, 199 Ga. 851, 856(1), 36 S.E.2d 77 ...

1 cases
Document | Georgia Court of Appeals – 2016
Houghton v. Sacor Fin., Inc.
"..., supra at 624(1)(a), 697 S.E.2d 779 (citations omitted).26 See Division 1 (a), supra.27 Supra.28 See generally Caraway v. Spillers , 332 Ga.App. 588, 590, 774 S.E.2d 162 (2015) (“Because we reverse [the grant of summary judgment], we need not reach other arguments raised by [the appellants..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
1 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 68-1, September 2016
Real Property
"...at 117, 779 S.E.2d at 444.341. Id.342. Id.343. Id. See also O.G.G.A. § 23-3-40.344. Harris, 335 Ga. App. at 117, 779 S.E.2d at 444.345. 332 Ga. App. 588, 774 S.E.2d 162 (2015). 346. Id. at 588-89, 774 S.E.2d at 162-63.347. Id. at 589, 774 S.E.2d at 163.348. Id.349. Id. at 589-90, 774 S.E.2d..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 68-1, September 2016
Real Property
"...at 117, 779 S.E.2d at 444.341. Id.342. Id.343. Id. See also O.G.G.A. § 23-3-40.344. Harris, 335 Ga. App. at 117, 779 S.E.2d at 444.345. 332 Ga. App. 588, 774 S.E.2d 162 (2015). 346. Id. at 588-89, 774 S.E.2d at 162-63.347. Id. at 589, 774 S.E.2d at 163.348. Id.349. Id. at 589-90, 774 S.E.2d..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 cases
Document | Georgia Court of Appeals – 2016
Houghton v. Sacor Fin., Inc.
"..., supra at 624(1)(a), 697 S.E.2d 779 (citations omitted).26 See Division 1 (a), supra.27 Supra.28 See generally Caraway v. Spillers , 332 Ga.App. 588, 590, 774 S.E.2d 162 (2015) (“Because we reverse [the grant of summary judgment], we need not reach other arguments raised by [the appellants..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex