Fairdealing Apostolic Church, Inc. v. Casinger
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1511, 2011 WL 5438978, 353 S.W.3d 396 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An incorporated entity can satisfy the continuous possession element of adverse possession by 'tacking' its period of possession onto that of its unincorporated predecessor, provided there is privity between the two entities, which can be established by evidence without a formal written instrument.
Facts:
- In 1936, a half-acre tract of land was deeded to 'The Pentecostal Assembly of Jesus Christ of this community,' an unincorporated religious association.
- Shortly after erecting their first church building in the late 1930s, church members built a wire fence along a tree line they mistakenly believed was their property boundary, thereby enclosing a .14-acre strip of adjacent land.
- For several decades, the church members used this .14-acre strip as their own, placing a propane tank on it in the 1970s, mowing it, and using it for parking.
- In 1989, the Appellant acquired the property bordering the church to the south and east, which included the disputed .14-acre strip.
- In 1995, Appellant showed the church pastor a survey indicating the boundary discrepancy and suggested the church get an attorney, but Appellant did not impede the church's use of the strip.
- In 1996, the church constructed a new building, a portion of which extended onto the disputed strip of land, as did the church parking lot.
- In 2003, the unincorporated association, known as Fairdealing Apostolic Church, formally incorporated as 'Fairdealing Apostolic Church, Inc.' (Respondent).
Procedural Posture:
- In 2009, Respondent, Fairdealing Apostolic Church, Inc., filed a petition to quiet title to the .14-acre strip of land in the trial court against Appellant, the adjacent landowner.
- The case was tried before the court without a jury.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Respondent, quieting title to the disputed property in the church's name.
- Appellant, the landowner, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern 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:
Does an incorporated church satisfy the ten-year continuous possession requirement for an adverse possession claim by tacking on the possession period of its unincorporated predecessor, when the incorporated entity itself has only existed for six years prior to filing suit?
Opinions:
Majority - Daniel E. Scott, Judge
Yes. An incorporated church can satisfy the ten-year continuous possession requirement by tacking on the possession period of its unincorporated predecessor. The court found that the evidence sufficiently established all elements of adverse possession. The element of 'hostile' possession was met because the church demonstrated an intent to possess the land, even if based on a mistake about the boundary, through acts of dominion such as placing a propane tank, mowing, parking, and building on the strip. The 'exclusive' possession element was satisfied as the church used the land for itself and did not permit joint use. Most critically, the 'continuous possession for ten years' element was met through the doctrine of 'tacking.' The court rejected Appellant's argument that Respondent's six-year corporate existence was insufficient, reasoning that periods of adverse possession by predecessors can be added to meet the requirement. This 'tacking' does not require a formal deed or written transfer; privity between the successive occupants is sufficient. The court found that testimony established Respondent was the 'true and legitimate successor' to the unincorporated church, creating the necessary privity to tack the decades of prior possession, far exceeding the ten-year requirement.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the flexibility of the 'tacking' doctrine within adverse possession law. It clarifies that privity between a predecessor and successor in possession does not depend on a formal legal instrument like a deed. The ruling is significant for organizations, such as churches or associations, that undergo changes in their legal structure over time, confirming that their possessory rights are not extinguished by incorporation. The case establishes that as long as a continuous, successive relationship can be proven as a matter of fact, the periods of possession can be combined to meet statutory requirements.
Unlock the full brief for Fairdealing Apostolic Church, Inc. v. Casinger