AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a foreclosure judgment, an order confirming sale, and a special master’s report against Joel S. Hickerson, who is a self-represented litigant. Hickerson appealed against these decisions, challenging their validity on the grounds of statute of limitations and adverse possession claims.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the statute of limitations should have barred the foreclosure action or, alternatively, that he should be considered to have adversely possessed the subject property.

Legal Issues

• Whether the statute of limitations should have barred the foreclosure action.
• Whether the appellant could claim adverse possession of the subject property.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, maintaining the foreclosure judgment, order confirming sale, and special master’s report against Joel S. Hickerson.

Reasons

• Per Henderson, J., with Attrep, C.J., and Duffy, J., concurring: The court was not persuaded by the appellant's memorandum in opposition to the proposed summary disposition. The appellant's arguments were found to be in conflict with established legal authority, which he failed to acknowledge or counteract effectively. The repetition of previously made arguments without presenting new, rationally responsive arguments did not meet the requirement for a party responding to a summary calendar notice to specifically point out errors of law and fact. Consequently, the court adhered to its initial assessment and affirmed the decisions against Hickerson (paras 1-3).