Jane Lipscomb Stone

Summary

Justice Hart agrees that the Stone heirs lacked any interest in the property and therefore lacked standing to challenge enforcement of the charitable trust. She dissents from the majority's decision to address the heirs' remaining quiet-title arguments, contending that doing so was advisory and unnecessary. She also explains that, even if reached, the quiet-title analysis was erroneous because the City held only a reverter interest and WRMC had not satisfied the statutory period for adverse possession.