iv ¢ Laamence counry 4 2/93 ay § CERTIFY THIS KEVIN RAYBORNGHY. CLK. INSTRUMENT WAS FILED FORRECORD BY we.» RETURN TO John T. Armstrong, Jr ‘Armstrong, Thomas, Berry, Lampton & McCardle, PLLC P.O. Box 190 Hazlehurst, MS 39083 Tel. No.: (601) 894-4061 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI COUNTY OF LAWRENCE COURT DECREE WILLIAM HENRY PEAVEY and wife, KATHRYN H. PEAVEY 388 Frog Ridge Road Jayess, MS 39641 ‘Telephone #: 601-587-7319 Vs. ANTHONY D WILSON, PAUL D. WILSON and DANIEL B. WILSON 328 Frog Ridge Road Jayess, MS 39641 Telephone #: 601-587-4425 INDEXING INSTRUCTIONS: TEN, R10E Sec 29: N1/2 of NE 1/4IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF LAWRENCE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI WILLIAM HENRY PEAVEY and wife, FILaD KATHRYN H. PEAVEY PLAINTIFFS NOy.07 2017 vs. Chancery Ol USE NO.: 016-01108-1 ANTHONY D. WILSON, PAUL D. WILSON and DANIEL B. WILSON DEFENDANTS OPINION AND FINAL JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE came on before the Court for trial on August 22, 2017, on the Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the Defendants’ Answer and Affirmative Defenses. The Plaintiffs, William Henry Peavey and wife, Kathryn H. Peavey, were present and represented by the Hon. John T. Armstrong, Jt, and the Defendant, Anthony D. Wilson, was present, the Defendant, Paul D. Wilson, was not present and the Defendant, Daniel B. Wilson, was not present. Alll three Defendants were represented by the Hon. Ross Bamett, Jr. The Court finds that it has jurisdiction of this matter and venue is proper, as this matter involves real property located in Lawrence County, Mississippi FACTUAL HISTORY The evidence reflects that the Plaintiffs have record title to the following described real property located in Lawrence County, Mississippi: Alll that part of the N % of NE 1/4 lying North of the Public Road, Section 29, Township 6 North, Range 10 East, containing approximately 5 acres, more or less. And also: NE 1/4 of NE I/4 of Section 29, Township 6 North, Range 10 East, containing 40 acres, more or less. LESS AND EXCEPT: (1) That portion of said NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 as conveyed to William Henry Peavy as perDeed Book.A-31, Page 469; (2) Commencing at that certain point where the Western boundary of a pipeline intersects the Southern boundary of the public road that travels to Antioch Church in the N % of the NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section 29, Township 6 North, Range 10 East, and run in a Westerly direction along and with the Southern boundary of said public road for 50 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence continue ina Westerly direction along and with the Southern boundary of said public road for 552 feet; thence South 552 feet; thence in an Easterly direction parallel to said road for 552 feet; thence North for 552 feet to the Point of Beginning; situated in the NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section 29, Township 6 North, Range 10 East, and containing 7 acres, more or less. This conveyance being of 31 acres, more or less. (Hereinafter referred to as the Peavey Property) The record reflects that the Defendant, Daniel Beowulf Wilson, also known as Daniel B. Wilson, is-the record owner of real property situated in Lawrence County, Mississippi, described as follows: Section 29, Township 6 North, Range 10 East: All that part of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 29, Township 6 North, Range 10 East, that lies South of the Brookhaven and Tilton Public Road and West of Halls Creek, containing 37 acres, ‘more or less. LESS AND Commencing at the SW Corner of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 29, Township 6 North, Range 10 East, and run East along the forty line a distance of 300 feet to the Point of Beginning of the land herein described; thence run North a distance of 209 feet to a point. Thence run East a distance of 209 feet to a point; thence run South a distance of 209 feet to the forty line; thence run West along said forty line a distance of 209 feet back to the Point of Beginning of the land herein described, containing one acre, more or less, and being located and situated in the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 29, Township 6 North, Range 10 East, Lawrence County, Mississippi. And also: Fifteen (15) acres of land lying in the Northeastern portion of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 29, Township 6 North, Range 10 East, lying North and East of a made line between the land of Wiley J. Wilson and Lands owned by Pate Lambert, And also:Alll that part of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 20, lying South of the public paved road known as Frog Ridge Road. LESS AND EXCEPT: Beginning at the SW Corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of said Section 20 and thence run East for a distance of 500 feet; thence run North to the South boundary of the public paved road known as Frog Ridge Road; thence run in aNorthwesterly direction along and with the South boundary of said road to a point where the same intersects with the West boundary line of the SE 1/4 of the SW I/4; thence run South to the Point of Beginning, and being situated in the SW Corner of the SE I/4 of the SW 1/4 of said Section 20 and containing I % acres, more or less. And containing 3 % acres, more or less. Daniel Beowulf Wilson's ownership is subject to the reservation of a life estate by the Defendant, Paul D. Wilson. (Hereinafter referred to as the Wilson Property). The real property that is in dispute in this litigation is described as follows: Township 6 North, Range 10 East Section 29: All that part of the NW I/4 of the NE 1/4 lying South of Frog Ridge Road and lying East of Hall's Creek, containing 3.5 acres, more or less. (Hereinafter referred to the disputed property) ‘The Peaveys’ Complaint claims that the Peavey’s predecessor in title, Javous Peavey, the father of William Henry Peavey, went into complete and full possession of the disputed property in 1937. They claim that for more than fifty years Mr. Peavey’s father and Mr. Peavey and his wife, Kathryn Peavey, have been in full and complete and total possession of the disputed property. They claim that the disputed property has been assessed for ad valorem taxes to the Plaintiffs. They claim that they have established ownership of the disputed property by adverse possession. The Plaintiffs? claim that one or more of the Defendants has adversely entered into and trespassed on the disputed property and caused damages by tearing down fences and other structures on the disputed property. ‘They ask the Court to grant the Plaintiffs’ judgment confirming the Plaintiff's title against all of the named Defendants and canceling any claim of the Defendants to any part of the disputed propertyas clouds upon the Plaintiffs’ title. They also ask for damages against the Defendants in the amount of $12,000.00 caused by the Defendants tearing down fences and other structures on the disputed property. ‘The three Defendants were personally served with process on August 4, 2016, and thereafter, by and through counsel, filed their Answer and Affirmative Defenses. The Defendants denied the claims made by the Plaintiffs and asserted the affirmative defenses of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, lack of standing with which to bring the claim, that the Plaintiffs have not adversely owned any property, that the Plaintiffs are claiming the disputed property which was not actually deeded to the Plaintiffs and therefore have no claim, to the principal and multiple other affirmative defenses. ‘The chain of title concerning the Wilson property, is as follows: A Warranty Deed dated February 7, 1946, with Mrs. Jessie Lambert and Earl Lambert, Grantors, and George D. Wilson, Grantee, Warranty Deed Book A-20, Page 396, conveys the property in Section 29, Township 6 North, Range 10 East, Lawrence County, Mississippi, as follows: “All that part of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 29, Township 6 North, Range 10 East, that lies South of the Brookhaven and Tilton Public Road and West of Hall's Creek, containing 37 acres, more or less. ALSO, the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 less three (3) acres in the NE Corner, in Section 29, Township 6 North, Range 10 East, containing thirty-seven (37) acres, more or less." ‘A Warranty Deed dated April 21, 1948, with Wylie J. Wilsonand Zella Wilson, Grantors and George D. Wilson, Grantee, Warranty Deed Book A-22, Page 343, conveys the following property: “All that portion of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 which lies South of the Brookhaven and Tilton Public Road and West of Hall's Creek." A Warranty Deed dated July 7, 1967, with George D. Wilson and Mae Wilson, Grantors andDavid E. Wilson, Grantee, Warranty Deed Book A-54, Page 254, conveys the following property: “All that part of the NW of the NE 1/4 of Section 29, Township 6 North, Range 10 East that lies South of the Brookhaven and Tilton Public Road and West of Hall's Creek, containing 37 acres, more or less." ‘A Warranty Deed dated May 28, 1998, with Davie E. Wilson, being one and the same person as D. E. Wilson and wife, Evelyn T. Wilson, Grantors, and Paul D. Wilson, as Grantee, Warranty Deed Book A-118, Page 120, conveys the following property: “All that part of the NW of the NE 1/4 of Section 29, Township 6 North, Range 10 East that lies South of the Brookhaven and Tilton Public Road and West of Hall's Creek, containing 37 acres, more or less.” ‘A Warranty Deed dated March 19, 2004, with Paul D, Wilson, Grantor, and Daniel Beowulf Wilson, as Grantee, Warranty Deed Book A-140, Page 376, conveys the following property: “All that part of the NW of the NE 1/4 of Section 29, Township 6 North, Range 10 East that lies South of the Brookhaven and Tilton Public Road and West of Hall's Creek, containing 37 acres, more or less." The Grantor, Paul D. Wilson, reserved aalife estate. The Court notes that all property descriptions concerning the land located in Section 29, ‘Township 6 North, Range 10 East, to the Wilsons, referred to the property being situated “West of Hall’s Creek, containing 37 acres, more or less.”. The Court notes that the Wilsons have no deed conveying to them, or any of them, the disputed property. The only testimony offered on behalfof the Wilsons was the testimony of Richard Wilson, who lived approximately % mile from the disputed property. Atthe trial of this cause, the only Defendant personally present was Anthony D. Wilson. He did not testify although he sat at counsel table. ‘The Peaveys have no deed conveying to them the disputed property. However, the Peaveysclaim ownership of the disputed property adverse possession. The Wilsons have not filed a claim for the ownership of the disputed property. The Wilsons have not made a claim of ownership based upon adverse possession. ‘TRIAL EXHIBITS ‘The Peaveys offered into evidence a map prepared and maintained by the Lawrence County ‘Tax Assessor showing the parcels of property owned by the Peaveys and assessed for taxation purposes to the Peaveys. This included the disputed property. This map is Exhibit “I" and it identifies as Parcel One a 36 acre parcel and the tax assessment notice identifying that parcel number as 018-0029-00001.00 for the tax year 2016 to be in the name of Henry Peavey and Katherine Peavey. The map shows the Western boundary of the Parcel No. 1 to be the course of Hall’s Creek running from the North on Frog Ridge Road to the South to another public road. The written assessment is attached to the deposition of William Henry Peavey on August 11, 2017, and is identified as Exhibit “15" to that deposition. The deposition was offered into evidence at the trial as, Exhibit “2' The tax assessment map, Exhibit “ identifies the Wilson property assessed to Paul D. Wilson, owning a life estate, and Daniel Beowulf Wilson owing the remainder interest as Parcel number 3. The tax receipts offered into evidence by the Wilsons as Exhibit “3" to the deposition herein above referred to, are tax receipts from the tax year 1998 through the tax year 2016. Beginning with 1998, the tax assessment is in the name of David Earl Wilson and wife, Evelyn Wilson. In the year 2016, the tax assessment is in the name of Paul B. Wilson (LE) and Daniel Beowulf Wilson (REM). This parcel is identified as A12-0029-0003.00. The tax assessment map clearly shows the Eastern boundary of the property to be along the course of Hall's Creek. These receipts for theWilsons for the tax year 1998 through the tax year 2009 are marked collectively as Exhibit “3" to the deposition of William Henry Peavey. According to the exhibits in the Tax Assessor’s Office of Lawrence County, the Lawrence County Tax Assessor has given notice that from the year 1998 through the year 2016, the boundary between Parcel No. | owned by the Peaveys and Parcel No. 3 ‘owned the by Paul D. Wilson and Daniel Beowulf Wilson is the course of Hall’s Creek running from the North at Frog Ridge Road to the South to another public road. Exhibit “2" offered into evidence by the Peaveys is the deposition of William Henry Peavey taken on August 11, 2017. Mr. Peavey was placed on the witness stand and questioned by his counsel and the counsel and Mr. Peavey read the questions and answers from the deposition. Exhibit “1" to the deposition of Mr. Peavey were the deeds to the Peavey family beginning with a deed dated October 14, 1937, from H. W. Lambert and Mammie Lambert to Javous Peavey. Javous Peavey is the father of William Henry Peavey. This deed is recorded in Warranty Deed Book A-15, Page 193. The second deed attached to the deposition was from Javous Peavey and wife, Nonnie M. Peavey, to William Henry Peavey, dated March 26, 1960, of record in Warranty Deed Book A-31, Page 233. The third deed attached to the deposition was from Javous Peavey and wife, Nonnie L. Peavey, to William Henry Peavey, dated January 28, 1961, of record in Warranty Deed Book A-31, Page 469. The fourth deed attached to the deposition was from Javous Peavey and wife, Nonnie Mae Peavey, to William Henry Peavey, dated January 17, 1978, of record in Warranty Deed Book A-61, Page 59; and the fifth deed was from Paul D. Wilson, a widower, to Henry Peavey and wife, Kathryn H. Peavey, dated January 25, 2008, of record in Warranty Deed Book A-153, Page 393. ‘These deeds to William Henry Peavey and/ William Henry Peavey and wife, Kathryn H.Peavey, do not describe the boundaries of the disputed property. Exhibit “2" to the deposition of Mr. Peavey are the deeds to the Wilsons as described herein above under the Factual History discussion. These deeds to the Wilsons do not describe the disputed property. Exhibit “3" to the deposition of Mr. Peavey, is a copy of the tax assessment map from the Tax Assessor of Lawrence County, Mississippi. The map shows Parcel No. 1 which includes all of the property on the East side of Hall’s Creek containing 36 acres, to be assessed to the Peaveys, as Parcel No. 1. The map also shows Parcel No. 3 to include 53 acres on the West side of Hall’s Creek assessed to the Wilsons. Exhibit “4" to the deposition is another copy of the Tax Assessor’s map with the disputed property being marked in yellow from the deposition testimony of Mr. Peavey and the location of the Javous Peavey house, the house of Mr. William Henry Peavey’s father, to be located on the West, forty line of the NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 South of Frog Ridge Road. The map also shows a marking for the present house of Mr. William Henry Peavey and wife, Kathryn Peavey to be North of Frog Ridge Road in that part of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 situated North of Frog Ridge Road. Photographs were offered into evidence and attached to the deposi \n of Mr. Peavey. The photographs marked as Exhibit “S" through Exhibit “9" show pictures of the road and the disputed property. Exhibit “10" to the deposition shows a picture of the disputed property with sugar cane located on the property and described by Mr. Peavey to be sugar cane that he has grown for several years taken in the year before his deposition was given in August of 2017. Exhibit “L1" to the deposition is a photograph of a sign placed on the disputed property byA. D. Wilson, the language on the sign reads as follows: “EST. 1921, Wilson Property no Peavey allowed!! Per: A. D. Wilson”. Exhibit 12" to the deposition is a photograph showing piled up pine tree branches. Exhibit “13" to the deposition of Mr. Peavey is a photograph of sugar cane that has been cut down and placed up next to a chain link fence, which the testimony reflected to be the work of Anthony D. Wilson and Richard Wilson, They cut the sugar cane down and placed it by the fence. Exhibit 14" is a photograph attached to the deposition that shows barbed wire and metal fence post taken up by Anthony Wilson and Richard Wilson and placed in a pile. ‘TESTIMONY The first witness offered on behalf of the Plaintiff was Mr. William Henry Peavey by deposition. Mr. Peavey read from his deposition and at the conclusion his deposition was offered into evidence as Exhibit “2", Mr. Peavey testified that he did not know that the Wilsons disputed the Peavey’s claim to the ownership of the disputed property until 2016. He and Tony Wilson had a discussion about the property after the sugar cane that had been grown on the property by Mr. Peavey had been cut and after the fences placed on the property had been pulled up and the wire and the post piled up and after the Wilsons had cut the pine trees. Prior to that time, Mr. Peavey testified that he was on the property on an everyday basis, that he grew and maintained a garden on the property and that he had never seen the Wilsons on the property exercising any claim to possession or ownership. Mr. Peavey identified the maps and exhibits and the tax assessments and he pointed out what has been referred to herein above as Hall’s Creek is also referred to in the community as “Perch Creek”. He said Perch Creek actually runs into Hall’s Creek, He testified that the area in dispute contains approximately 3 1/4 acres. Mr. Peavey testified that his father, Javous Peavey worked theland fencing it, growing a garden on it, growing sugar cane on it, prior to the title being placed into Henry Peavey’s name. Henry Peavey went on the property and helped his father work and maintain the property. He said dozier work was performed on the property by he and his father in 1978 through 1980. Mr. Peavey testified that for the last forty years he has had a garden on the disputed property and he has grown sugar cane and watermelons and other produce. He has done it every year for forty years. He fenced the property. He testified that his father and his mother even after his father died, was on the property on a daily basis. Hie parents planted wheat, com, potatoes, and watermelons and prior to that they cleared all ofthe trees and vegetation off the property many years, ago. Mr, Peavey testified that he planted trees on the property and that he has paid the taxes on the property since 1978, since he acquired title to the property. Recently, he has planted and grown sugar cane, turnips, mustard, and collards, and kale. He said that his neighbors stop while he is working in the garden and pick up produce that he has grown from the garden. He says the disputed property and his garden was in open view of anybody that passed on the public road. He said the Wilson’s had an open view of Peavey's use of the disputed property. Mr. Peavey testified that there had been no questions or issues of his ownership, use and possession of the disputed property until 2016, when Anthony D. (Tony) Wilson and Richard Wilson cut down the sugar cane and took it to Monticello and gave it away. Mr. Peavey referred to Exhibit 11", the photo of the sign that was put up by Anthony D. (Tony) Wilson. He pointed out that behind the sign was the sugar cane that he had grown on the disputed property. Mr. Peavey testified about the Court order that was entered that was signed by the parties to this litigation which was an agreed order that the parties would not go upon the disputed land until 10the matter was resolved by this Court. Mr. Peavey has not gone upon the disputed property but Tony Wilson has. Mr. Peavey testified about the sheriff coming to the property and the Wilsons making the sheriff leave the property. That night, the sugar cane was cut down and laid at the fence of the Peaveys. He identified Exhibit “14” as the fencing wire cut down by Richard and Tony Wilson. This wire and fence was located on the creek between the Wilson property and the Peavey property and. Mr. Peavey saw them cutting the wire down, and saw them use a truck to pull the post down. He testified that the dispute started in June of 2016 and escalated in July of 2016. On cross examination, Mr. Peavey testified that he lived in his home at its present location for fifty-five years. He said he had used the 3 1/4 acres which is the disputed property for a garden and had plowed it himself with a mule. He testified that he had paid the taxes on that property since 1978. He testified that he and his father, Javous Peavey, had put the fence on the land and that his. father maintained hogs on the property. Mr. Peavey testified that the Wilsons put up a fence, not, through the three acres on the East side of the creek but on the Westside of the creek, on the Wilson side of the creek. ‘The Peaveys called to the stand the Hon. Eugene Thatch, an attorney from Petal, Mississippi, and Mr. Thatch was qualified and offered as an expert witness in land examination. He testified that he had practiced law for thirty four years until about one year ago and he is inactive now. That he does oil and gas land work. He was asked to examine the title to the disputed property and he gave a detailed description of the chain of title both for the Wilsons and for the Peaveys. At the conclusion of his discussion about the chain of title he pointed out that neither party had a deed that described the boundaries of the disputed property. He noted that the deeds and the chain of title to the Wilsons referenced their property as being on the West side of creek. He said that has been in the chain of ititle of 1948. Mr. Thatch was shown the tax assessor’s map and described that according to his review of the maps the Tax Assessor has given notice to the public and to the parties that the Peaveys have a claim to the ownership of the property in the NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section 29, Township 6 North, Range 10 East, Lawrence County, Mississippi, all of that part of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 situated East of the creek. He has noted that the course of the creek which is known as Hall’s Creek is marked by a bold line which signifies the boundary between the Peaveys and the Wilsons. Kathryn H. Peavey testified that she and Mr. Peavey have been married for fifty nine years, having been married on December 22, 1957. She testified that she and her husband and his family have used the disputed property since 1957, she has observed the property and used the property They have owned it and possessed the disputed property since 1978. When they first married they lived with Mr. Peavey’s parents until they built their current house which is situated North of Frog Ridge Road. The Wilsons called their only witness, Richard Wilson. The Defendant, Anthony D. Wilson, ‘was present in the courtroom situated at counsel table. The Defendant, Paul D. Wilson, was not present and the Defendant, Daniel B. Wilson, was not present. Richard Wilson is not a party. Richard Wilson testified that he lives at 226 Frog Ridge Road, which is about % mile from the disputed property. He testified that his family paid taxes on 53.72 acres which comports with the description and the map prepared by the Lawrence County Tax Assessor. Concerning the use of his knowledge of the disputed property, Richard Wilson, testified that he walked on the three acres, that he fished on it, he hunted on it and he sometimes cut firewood on it, He testified that there never was a fence on the boundary between the Wilsons and the Peaveys. He testified that Mr. Peavey has posted signs on all of his property except the three acres, He was asked about his use of the property 12over the last ten years and he says he has walked the property quiet a bit. He testified about his work as being offshore work and he works 28 days and he is off 28 days. He testified that he was not aware of Mr, Peavey’s claim of adverse possession of the disputed property until 2016. He said the dispute started while he was offshore. He didn’t say what time period that he was offshore concerning the dispute. (On cross examination he was asked about the pulling down of the wire and the post that constituted a fence put up by Mr. Peavey and he said Tony, which is one and the same as Anthony D. Wilson, pulled the fence down and Richard was there giving him support. After the fence was down, “we dumped them on his property”. He acknowledged that the Wilsons’ deeds describe their property as being West of Hall’s Creek. Concerning the testimony of the witnesses, this Court notes that there has been no testimony from any of the Defendants concerning the claims of ownership to the disputed property by the Peaveys or the Wilsons. The only witness offered by the Defendants is Richard Jn. The Court notes the reference by Richard Wilson in his testimony that he supported the actions of Tony Wilson in the tearing down of the fence and the cutting of the sugar cane, Further, Richard Wilson participated with Tony Wilson in the cutting down of the sugar cane and the tearing down of the wire and post that made up the fence on the boundary line. The photograph, Exhibit “11” to the deposition, is of a sign evidently placed there by the Defendant, Anthony D. Wilson. The photograph shows sugar cane behind the sign. The Court first became aware of this dispute in December of 2016, when an Agreed Order dated December 5, 2016, was presented to the Court for the Court’s entry. The Agreed Order stated “until ownership of the above land is decided by this Court it is ordered that neither the BPlaintiffs, William Henry Peavey and wife, Kathryn H. Peavey, or the Defendants, Anthony D. Wilson, Paul D. Wilson and Daniel B. Wilson, shall not go upon or occupy any part of the above described land. If any party violates the terms of this Order that person or persons shall be subject to contempt of court and/or assessed fine: ‘The record reflects that Anthony D. Wilson knowingly, wilfully and intentionally disregarded the Agreed Order. The Court recalls the testimony offered at the contempt hearing ‘concerning the violation of the Agreed Order. The testimony reflects that Anthony D. Wilson went upon the property after the Order of December 5, 2016, on almost a daily basis and that at one time he engaged in a confrontation with Mr. Peavey and his wife, Kathryn. According to a swom statement to the Court made by John T. Armstrong, Jr., Esquire, dated January 9, 2017, and filed in the Court file on January 11, 2017, the following transpired on January 9, 2017: “On about 10:00 a.m. on January 9, 2017, 1, along with William Henry Peavey and wife, Kathryn H. Peavey, in separate cars, drove to the site of hte contested land in this cause of action. We parked both cars and never left the highway right of way. In driving to the site, a white pickup passes us at an excessive rate of speed. Mr. Peavey told me that was Anthony D. (Tony) Wilson who passed us. When we got to the site of the contested land, the white pickup was parked in the western part of the land in violation of the Court's Order. I took out my map and got my bearings as to where things were located. Along the creek, at the edge of the woods, there is a tract of about one acre which appears to have been farmed for many years. After about five minutes, Tony Wilson got out of his pickup and walked across the contested land, again in violation of the Court's Order. Tony Wilson had a pistol strapped on his waist and was carrying a shot gun. Mr. Peavey said that was the shot gun Tony had stolen from him at an earlier date. Tony Wilson walked across the contested land to an area directly in front of the three of us. He waied the gun in our direction and then jabbed the shot gun, barrel first, into the dirt several times, and left the shot gun on the ground. After making several remarks, Tony Wilson picked up the gun and continued to walk around on the contested land. About that time, a black car drove up and parked on the contested land, anda girl got out who Mr. and Mrs. Peavey said was Tony's girl friend. The girl friend walked up to the three of us. and made several statements such as, “you have no right to be on that land." I told 14‘Mr. And Mrs. Peavey we should make no reply and suggested we get in the car and drive and off. At that point, we got in our two cars and drove back to the Courthouse in Monticellc Testimony was presented in support of the Motion for Contempt and this Court, after hearing the testimony the Court found that Anthony D. (Tony) Wilson knowingly and intentionally violated the Order of this Court dated December 5, 2016, and found him in contempt of Court and assessed. fines for the damages caused by Tony D. Wilson in the amount of $5,900.00. The Court further finds that the Judgment of Contempt was served on Tony D. Wilson by the Sheriff of Lawrence County and even after the service of the Order Tony D. Wilson knowingly and willingly again went upon the disputed land and started cutting pine trees. The actions of Tony D. Wilson were in flagrant disregard of the Court Order and demonstrated complete contempt for the Order of the Court. Further, on January 25, 2017, Tony D. Wilson threatened the Plaintiffs. Because of the conduct of Tony D. Wilson the Court entered a Judgment for Contempt of Court Subsequent to Earlier Judgment of Contempt and the same was entered by the Court on February 6, 2017. The Court found Tony D. Wilson to be in criminal contempt of Court and directed the Sheriff of Lawrence County to arrest, detain and incarcerate Anthony D. (Tony) Wilson in the Lawrence County, Mississippi, jail. The Court assessed an additional fine of $2,500.00 to be paid within ten (10) days. The Court has made note of the above to reflect that this Court assigns no credibility to the testimony of Richard Wilson. The Court has observed the demeanor and the conduct of Anthony D. (Tony) Wilson in the courtroom and the demeanor of Richard Wilson. ADVERSE POSSESSION Miss. Code Ann. Sec. 15-1-13(1972), sets out the requirements to establish full and complete 15title of land by adverse possession. The Mississippi Supreme Court has enumerated six elements that are required to establish a claim for adverse possession. “(1) under claim of right; (2) actual; @G) open, notorious and visible; (4) exclusive; (5) continuance and uninterrupted for ten years, and (6) peaceful.” . Pieper v Pontiff 513 So. 2d 591, 594 (Miss. 1987). Roy v Kyser, 501 So. 2d 1110 (Miss. 1987). The Wilsons have filed no pleading claiming record title or ownership by adverse possession in the disputed property. The Wilsons offered no evidence of any kind showing adverse possession of the disputed property. The Court notes that the only testimony offered by the Defendants, that of Richard Wilson, was not credible nor consistent in that he testified at first that there were no fences, located on the disputed property and later testified that he was present when the fences were pulled up and the post pulled down. There was no evidence submitted by the Wilsons to dispute the claim of Mr. Peavey that he built the fences on the property. Again, the same situation with the pine trees. Mr. Peavey testified that he planted the pine trees. There was no evidence offered by the Wilsons to contradict the claim of Mr. Peavey that he planted the pine trees. Yet, Mr. Wilson testified to the cutting down of the trees. Mr. Peavey testified that he was in open and notorious possession of the disputed land for over a ten year period. The Wilsons offered no evidence to contradict that testimony. They offered no evidence that there was any period of time that would have interrupted or defeated the claim of adverse possession for a period of ten years. Therefore, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs, William Henry Peavey and wife, Kathryn H. Peavey, have met their burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence and have proven a clear case of adverse possession on behalf of Plaintifis against the Defendants, The Plaintiffs are entitled toa dectee cancelling any claim or claims of the Defendants to the disputed land. 16‘The Court further finds that the credible evidence supports the claim of the Plaintiffs for damages. The Defendant, Anthony D. (Tony) Wilson, and Richard Wilson destroyed the sugar cane on the property claimed by the Plaintiffs, destroyed the fences by taking down the wire and pulling up the post, sold and or gave away the sugar cane in Monticello, and that the damage to the sugar ccane at the fair value of the sugar cane and the fences destroyed is in the amount $6,000.00 and the Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment against Anthony D. (Tony) Wilson in the amount of $6,000.00. The Court further finds that the Defendants shall be assessed with all costs of court, for which let execution issue. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the Plaintiffs’ ‘Complaint filed herein on July 18, 2016, pleading for a judgment of this Court confirming their title generally against all of the Defendants to the subject lands and cancelling any claim of the Defendants to any part of the subject land as clouds upon the PlaintiffS° shall be and hereby is granted. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Answer and Affirmative Defenses filed on behalf of Anthony D. (Tony) Wilson, Paul D. Wilson, and Daniel B. Wilson on August 4, 2016, shall be and hereby is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that William Henry Peavey and wife, Kathryn H. Peavey are the exclusive owners of the real property described more particularly as: “All that part of the NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 lying South of Frog Ridge Road and lying East of Hall's Creek in Section 29, Township 6 North, Range 10 East, containing 3.5 acres, more or less.” IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the title is hereby confirmed and quieted in William Henry Peavey and Kathryn H. Peavey against Anthony D. (Tony) Wilson, Paul 7D. Wilson and Daniel B. Wilson, and all the world: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Chancery Clerk is authorized and directed to timely enter and spread this Court's Opinion and Final Judgment among the official land records and indexed to the legal description of the Plaintiffs" property. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that all cost of Court is hereby assessed against the Defendants, Anthony D. (Tony) Wilson, Paul D. Wilson and Daniel B. Wilson, for which let execution issue. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiffs, William Henry Peavey and Kathryn H. Peavey be and they are hereby awarded judgment in the amount of $6,000.00 against the Defendant, Anthony D. (Tony) Wilson for which let execution issue. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THIS the 2 Day of. Min, 2017. wih MAKE, CHANELLOR POST ONE, THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Gattitiga to 9 tue copy this the Mf Merb 2047 RN nly, Miss. 18