EBSCO Industries, Inc. v. Ballard, et al., [Ms. SC-2024-0678, June 6, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). The Court (Sellers, J.; Wise, Mendheim, and McCool, JJ., concur; Sellers, J., concurs specially; Cook, J., concurs in part and concurs in the result; Shaw, J., concurs in the result, which Stewart, C.J., and Lewis, J., join; Bryan, J., concurs in the result) reverses the Tuscaloosa Circuit judgment holding that Michael R. Ballard acquired land from EBSCO Industries, Inc. by adverse possession. While acknowledging the strength of the ore tenus presumption in adverse possession cases, the Court reiterates that it does not apply “when the trial court is shown to have improperly applied the law to the facts.” Espinoza v. Rudolph, 46 So. 3d 403, 412 (Ala. 2010).” Ms. *6.
The circuit court erred in holding Ballard acquired the disputed parcel by adverse possession because “two years before Ballard purchased the property adjoining the EBSCO property, he entered into a lease with EBSCO to hunt on the EBSCO property. The leased property included the disputed parcel.” Ms. *9. The Court further holds “[p]ermissive use in and of itself cannot be hostile regardless of whether provisions of a lease are breached. Here, as long as Ballard continued to pay rent, his use of the disputed parcel was permissive and could not ripen into a possessory interest through adverse possession.” Ms. *10.