In re Estate of Donald Patrick Burns

Shelbyville, Tennessee probate lawyers represented the parties in an adverse possession case.

Donald Burns had one biological child, Harold Burns, and two stepchildren, Michael Scott and Debbie Morsman. After Donald Burns died, his two stepchildren filed a complaint against Harold Burns, as administrator of Donald Burns' estate, contesting ownership of a portion of the decedent's real property.



According to the complaint, the decedent and his wife promised Mr. Scott that they would give him a lot encompassing approximately one-fourth of the twenty-acre property if he helped them clear and build on the land. They also promised that they would hold the remaining property to be distributed equally at their deaths to Mr. Scott, Ms. Morsman, and Mr. Harold Burns. In reliance on these promises, Mr. Scott helped clear the land. He also lived on his one-fourth of the property, "openly claiming it as his own and even paying taxes thereon, for almost thirty years." Yet the decedent never conveyed any portion of the tract to his stepchildren by deed or will. He died intestate, his wife having predeceased him.



The stepchildren filed a complaint, seeking relief under three legal theories. First, they requested a declaratory judgment recognizing Mr. Scott's ownership of one-fourth of the land based on common law adverse possession. Second, both stepchildren alleged that they held title to three-fourths of the land as the beneficiaries of an express oral trust. Third, both stepchildren alleged that the decedent breached an oral contract to convey three-fourths of the land to them in exchange for Mr. Scott's assistance clearing and occupying the land.



The administrator of the estate moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See TENN. R. CIV. P. 12.02(6). The trial court agreed that Mr. Scott's adverse possession claim failed because his possession of the land was neither adverse nor exclusive. And it concluded that the stepchildren could not maintain their claims for an oral trust or breach of oral contract based on the statute of frauds. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-2-101(a)(4)-(5) (2024). So it dismissed the complaint.



In re Burns, M2024-00177-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. Nov 27, 2024)

Construing the complaint liberally, presuming all factual allegations to be true, and giving the stepchildren the benefit of all reasonable inferences, we conclude that the complaint has stated a claim for express oral trust and breach of contract. But the complaint fails to sufficiently plead an adverse possession claim. So that claim was properly dismissed. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.