Dockery v. Hocutt (2003)

An appellate court may reverse a trial court under an abuse of discretion standard “only upon a showing that its actions are manifestly unsupported by reason.” Dockery v. Hocutt, 357 N.C. 210, 215 , 581 S.E.2d 431, 435 (2003) (citations omitted).

Co., 313 N.C. 362, 369 , 329 S.E.2d 333, 337-38 (1985); Dockery v. Hocutt, 357 N.C. 210, 217 , 581 S.E.2d 431, 436 (2003) (“It is only when the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict in the non-movant’s favor that the motion should be granted.”).

One may assert a claim of adverse possession upon a portion of a tract of land so long as such portion is identifiable by “known and visible lines and boundaries.” Dockery v. Hocutt, 357 N.C. 210, 218 , 581 S.E.2d 431, 436 (2003).

Dockery v. Hocutt, 357 N.C. 210, 217, 581 S.E.2d 431, 436 (2003) (“[F]ollowing a compulsory reference, the test to determine a demand for jury trial is the same as that for a motion for directed verdict. . . .”).

CLORE Opinion of the Court construe statutes in pari materia, giving effect, if possible, to every provision.” Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp., 358 N.C. 160, 188 , 594 S.E.2d 1, 20 (2004) (citing Dockery v. Hocutt, 357 N.C. 210, 219 , 581 S.E.2d 431, 437 (2003)).

“It is only when the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict in the non-movant’s favor that the motion should be granted.” Dockery v. Hocutt, 357 N.C. 210, 217 , 581 S.E.2d 431, 436 (2003). 1.

However, even if we were to assume that this testimony describes a known and visible line or boundary, see N.C.G.S. § 1-40 (2011); Dockery v. Hocutt, 357 N.C. 210, 217-19 , 581 S.E.2d 431, 436-37 (2003), this line does not correspond to defendant’s claim.

The right “is premised upon a preliminary determination by the trial judge that there indeed exist genuine issues of fact... which require submission to the jury.” Id. *552 Dockery v. Hocutt, 357 N.C. 210, 217 , 581 S.E.2d 431, 436 (2003).

Dockery v. Hocutt, 357 N.C. 210, 216-17 , 581 S.E.2d 431, 436 (2003) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

With respect to the elements of a claim of adverse possession, “ ‘[o]ne may assert title to land embraced within the bounds of another’s deed by showing adverse possession of the portion claimed for twenty years under known and visible lines and boundaries (G.S. 1-40), but his claim is limited to the area actually possessed, and the burden is upon the claimant to establish his title to the land in that manner.’ ” Dockery v. Hocutt, 357 N.C. 210, 217-18 , 581 S.E.2d 431, 436 …

It is only when the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict in the non-movant’s favor that the motion should be granted.” Dockery v. Hocutt, 357 N.C. 210, 216-17 , 581 S.E.2d 431, 436 (2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (quoting Rappaport v. Days Inn of Am., Inc., 296 N.C. 382, 384 , 250 S.E.2d 245, 247 (1979), overruled on other grounds by Nelson v. Freeland, 349 N.C. 615 , 507 S.E.2d 882 (1998)).

Dockery v. Hocutt, 357 N.C. 210, 217 , 581 S.E.2d 431, 436 (2003).

Dockery v. Hocutt, 357 N.C. 210, 217 , 581 S.E.2d 431, 436 (2003) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

As recently as last year, this Court reiterated that “[u]nder the North Carolina Constitution, a party has a right to a jury trial in ‘all controversies at law respecting property.’ ” Dockery v. Hocutt, 357 N.C. 210, 217 , 581 S.E.2d 431, 436 (2003) (quoting N.C.

“On a motion for summary judgment, defendants as movants would have had the burden to show that plaintiff could not adduce evidence of an essential element of his claim and that no genuine issue of material fact existed, thereby entitling defendants to judgment as a matter of law.” Dockery v. Hocutt, 357 N.C. 210, 216 , 581 S.E.2d 431, 435 (2003).