In Robinson v. Harrigan Timberlands Limited Partnership, the Supreme Court of Alabama addressed claims brought by landowner Robert Robinson against Harrigan Timberland Limited Partnership (“Harrigan”) and several timber companies for cutting timber on land he allegedly owned. Specifically, Robinson “asserted [the following] five claims against the timber companies,” each of which is dependent on Robinson’s legal ownership of the disputed property: “(1) trespass to land, (2) wrongful cutting of timber under [Alabama law], (3) wrongful cutting of timber under the common law, (4) conversion of timber under [Alabama law], and (5) . . . a negligent-trespass claim.” The timber companies subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Clarke Circuit Court granted.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment because once the timber companies demonstrated that Robinson did not satisfy the prima facie element of ownership, the burden shifted to Robinson to prove that he owned the property, which he ultimately failed to meet.