This quiet title and continuing trespass action revolves around a dispute between neighbors over the ownership and use of a portion of the Jeannette Street Alley Alley. The Alley runs between two contiguous pieces of property, 295 and 299 Peters Street. Because the City of Atlanta abandoned the Alley, the property reverted to the adjoining lots, with each lot expanding out to the centerline of the portion of the Alley abutting it.1 The present owners of 295 and 299 Peters Street are Douglas and Uldis Cernonok and Daniel Kane, respectively. The Cernonoks acquired their parcel in June of 1999 from Isham Colosetti. Kane, in turn, acquired his parcel in December of the same year from Alfred Brown and William Tate, acting on behalf of the Church of Truth, a business without separate legal status from Tate. On December 9, 1999, Kane recorded his deed to 299 Peters Street. Almost a year later, the Cernonoks began recording four deeds purporting to grant them title to the portion of the Alley abutting Kane’s property.2 Since the Cernonoks later blocked ingress and egress to the entirety of the Alley, Kane filed a quiet title action and a continuing trespass complaint against the Cernonoks. The matter was initially heard before a Special Master, who determined that the disputed portion of the Alley belonged to Kane by operation of his deed recorded prior to the Cernonoks’ deeds. Although the Cernonoks advanced a number of equitable arguments that they should be considered owners of the disputed property, the Special Master rejected these arguments because the Cernonoks failed to sufficiently place Kane on notice that they claimed an ownership interest in the Alley prior to the time that Kane acquired his property and recorded his deed. The Cernonoks subsequently appealed the Special Master’s decision to the superior court, which adopted the Special Master’s findings of fact and law. The Cernonoks now appeal, and we affirm.
1. “In an action to quiet title brought under OCGA § 23-3-60 et seq., . . . the findings of the Special Master and adopted by the trial court will be upheld unless clearly erroneous.” Seignious v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority , 252 Ga. 69, 71 311 SE2d 808 1984. Therefore, if there is any evidence supporting the judgment of the trial court, it will not be disturbed. Nebb v. Butler , 257 Ga. 145 357 SE2d 257 1987.
