Parrish v. Ratliff, et al., [Ms. CL-2024-0552, Oct. 11, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024). The court (Lewis, J.; Moore, P.J., and Edwards, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur) reverses a summary judgment entered by the Blount Circuit Court in a boundary dispute. The summary judgment was based upon the testimony of a surveyor who had surveyed the property. The court holds
“Where a nonparty witness gives contradictory testimony, a portion of which is favorable to the nonmovant in a summary judgment context, the trial court must leave to the jury’s prerogative the resolution of the factual issue.” Parr v. Champion Int’l Corp., 667 So. 2d 36, 40 (Ala. 1995). Here, the surveys attached as exhibits to Hopper’s deposition, as explained by Hopper, were conflicting with respect to the location of the northeastern corner of Parrish’s property. According to Gilliland’s survey, the discrepancy was dispositive of whether the disputed property was within Parrish’s property. Notably, Hopper did not testify that the disputed property was part of either Parrish’s or Ratliff’s property. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that a genuine issue of material fact existed with respect to the boundary line between Parrish’s and Ratliff’s properties, and the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment as to the issue of the boundary line.
Ms. **12-13.