Conaway v. Fauller
1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 826, 1998 WL 201516, 972 S.W.2d 442 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish title by adverse possession, a claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their possession of the specific property claimed was hostile, actual, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous for the entire statutory period.
Facts:
- In September 1984, Betty Conaway and Cleburn Pendley began living as tenants on Lot 10.
- In August 1985, Pendley entered into a contract to purchase Lot 10.
- Beginning in 1985, believing it was part of his property, Pendley built a horseshoe pit, a 12' x 12' metal shed on a concrete base, and planted hedges on the adjacent Lot 9.
- Pendley also seeded and mowed grass on the disputed area, but evidence did not establish this occurred on the southern portion of the disputed area for the full ten-year statutory period.
- In November 1991, Daniel and Janet Fauller began residing on Lot 9.
- Other items, such as a doghouse and a wishing well, were placed on the disputed land by Pendley at various times, but not for a continuous ten-year period.
- A survey in April 1996 revealed that Pendley's improvements were located on the Faullers' Lot 9.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 1, 1996, plaintiffs Betty Conaway and Cleburn Pendley sued defendants Daniel and Janet Fauller in a trial court, seeking to quiet title to a portion of Lot 9 under the doctrine of adverse possession.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them title to the entire disputed area.
- The defendants, the Faullers, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the plaintiffs establish by a preponderance of the evidence all five elements of adverse possession—hostile, actual, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous for ten years—for the entire disputed parcel of land?
Opinions:
Majority - Karohl, Judge
No, the plaintiffs did not establish all five elements of adverse possession for the entire disputed parcel of land, but they did establish them for the northern portion containing permanent improvements. The court found that while plaintiffs proved hostile, actual, open and notorious, and exclusive possession of the area, they failed to prove continuous possession for the full ten-year statutory period for the entire parcel claimed. The evidence supported their claim for the area with the permanent structures (shed, horseshoe pit, hedges) which were in place since 1985. However, there was no evidence to support a finding of ten years of adverse possession for the area south of the metal shed, as activities like grass seeding and mowing were not proven to have occurred there for the requisite duration before the lawsuit was filed in 1996.
Analysis:
This decision underscores the granular nature of adverse possession claims, clarifying that a claimant must prove the elements for each specific portion of the property they seek to acquire. It establishes that permanent improvements like sheds and concrete foundations serve as strong evidence of actual, open, and continuous possession. Conversely, more transient or less definitive acts like mowing grass may be insufficient to satisfy the continuity element for the entire statutory period without clear and specific proof, thereby limiting the scope of a successful adverse possession claim to only the area demonstrably and continuously possessed.
