Tennessee LawProperty DisputeAdverse PossessionReal EstateRhea County
Tennessee Court Ruling Denies Travis Couple Ownership of 30-Year Maintained Land Strip
Published: November 3, 2026
The Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled on October 29, 2026, that James and Mary Travis did not acquire adverse possession of a land strip despite decades of maintenance. The decision confirms Developed by Design’s right to a 30-foot right-of-way and mandates the couple cease interference with the developer’s access.
The Tennessee Court of Appeals handed down a decisive blow to the Travis family’s claim of ownership on October 29, 2026. In the case Developed by Design, LLC v. James M. Travis et al., the court rejected the couple’s argument that thirty years of mowing, gardening, and holding yard sales established legal title to the disputed strip. The ruling upheld the lower court’s earlier judgment from October 20, 2025, firmly siding with the developer.
The dispute centers on a 30-foot right-of-way cutting through a 43.39-acre parcel in Rhea County. Developed by Design, LLC, acquired the land and relied on a 1966 survey by Jack B. Kimsey, recorded in 1967, to define the boundary. James Travis, who has lived next door since 1996, argued his family treated the area as their own, planting blueberry bushes and clearing paths. However, the court found these activities insufficient to prove the "exclusive" control required for adverse possession under Tennessee law.
The judges emphasized the lack of overt signage or fencing. The couple never installed no-trespassing signs, and their daughter, Olivia Keller, testified that nothing visually marked the land as exclusively theirs. Caleb Yawn, a representative for the developer, noted that items like a car door and old pipes appeared in the area only after the conflict began in 2021. The trial court also questioned the credibility of Travis’s testimony regarding the duration of his mowing activities.
Judge Thomas R. Frierson II, joined by Chief Judge Frank G. Clement Jr. and Judge Steven W. Maroney, affirmed that the couple failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of continuous, open, and notorious possession. The legal standard demands more than casual use; it requires a degree of control that puts the true owner on notice, which the Travises did not demonstrate. The case now returns to the trial court for the execution of the judgment and collection of costs, leaving the developer free to proceed with its planned development.