Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 3

Citation
§ 3
Parent Document
Farris v. Laurel Explosives, Inc., 797 S.W.2d 487 (1990)
Jurisdiction
Kentucky (state)
Effective Date
1990-09-07

Full Text

822 chars
We believe the trial court erred by finding acquiescence and ratification. The application of the doctrine of ratification and acquiescence would estop the nonsign-ing co-owners from asserting their right of possession to the property. Although the evidence negated that the co-owners knew what was happening with the property, the trial court nevertheless assumed that they did because the operations were open and visible. Additionally, the court applied ratification and acquiescence because the co-owners were a close family unit and, therefore, each must have known from the other what was happening upon the property. This was concluded in spite of the fact that one of the co-owners did not live in the area but lived in Louisville, and another lived away from Laurel County for a period of approximately ten years.