Chaplin v. Robinson

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

James Chaplin
and Lewiston Chaplin, Appellants,

v.

Mary Mae
Robinson, Harriet Mae Brown, Rochelle Robinson, Florence Davis, Christine
Black, Jaqueline Moultrie, Lucinda Robinson, JoAnn Robinson, Henry Robinson,
Sr., Archie Robinson, Arthur Robinson, Sr., and John Doe and Mary Roe,
infants, insane persons, and incompetents being fictitious names designating
as a class of unknown person or persons, who may be an heir, distribute,
devisee, legatee, widow, widower, assign, executor, administrator, creditor,
successor, issue, or alienee of Henry Robinson, Jr., Eddie Green, Maggie
Mitchell, Adeline Green deceased, and any other person, known or unknown,
having any claim, right, title, estate in, or lien upon the parcel of real
property described in the Complaint herein, Defendants,

of whom Arthur
Robinson and Lucinda Robinson are the Respondents.

Appeal From Beaufort County

Marvin H. Dukes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-243 

Submitted May 1, 2011 – Filed May 24, 2011

AFFIRMED

Edward M. Brown, of Charleston, for
Appellants.

J. Thomas Mikell, of Beaufort, and William
F. Marscher, III, of Bluffton, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  James and Lewiston Chaplin  appeal the trial court's
order dismissing their claims of ownership of a .71 acre parcel on St. Helena
Island against the claims of Arthur Robinson, Sr. and Lucinda Robinson, arguing
the trial court erred in finding the Chaplins did not adversely possess the
contested parcel.  We affirm.[1] 

The party asserting adverse
possession bears the burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence he
has satisfied the elements of adverse possession.  Jones v. Leagan, 384
S.C. 1, 10-11, 681 S.E.2d 6, 11 (Ct. App. 2009) (citation omitted).  "Because
an adverse possession claim is an action at law, the character of the
possession is a question for the jury or fact finder.  Therefore, appellate
review is limited to a determination of whether any evidence reasonably tends
to support the trier of fact's findings."  Id. at 10, 681 S.E.2d at
11 (citation omitted).  Here, the trial court's decision is supported by
evidence reasonably supporting the trial court's findings, namely the testimony
of two land surveyors and the Robinsons' witnesses who were deemed more
credible than the Chaplins' witnesses.

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, KONDUROS, and
GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.