Gurwit v. Kannatzer

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
788 S.W.2d 293 (1990)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To establish title by adverse possession for wild, undeveloped land, the claimant's acts of ownership must be consistent with the nature of the property, and need not involve continuous physical occupation or significant improvements.

Facts:

In 1963, Monte and Martha Gurwit purchased approximately 76 acres of land from the Putnams.
During the sale, Mr. Putnam mistakenly indicated that a road formed the boundary, implicitly including an adjacent 17-acre tract of rough, brushy, and wooded land that was not described in the deed.
Believing they owned the 17-acre tract, the Gurwits used it for over 20 years for recreational purposes.
The Gurwits' specific acts on the land included posting 'no trespassing' and 'no hunting' signs along the road, cutting firewood for personal use, giving others permission to cut firewood, and clearing downed trees and brush.
Neighbors, including the record titleholders, the Gruenders, appeared to acknowledge the Gurwits' ownership, at times calling them to report trespassers on the disputed tract.
In 1983, Eugene Gruender informed Monte Gurwit that the Gurwits did not have record title to the 17-acre tract, which the Gruenders had been paying taxes on.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiffs Monte and Martha Gurwit filed a quiet title action in a Missouri trial court.
The Gruender families were named as defendants and filed a counterclaim to have title quieted in their names.
The trial court entered a judgment finding that the Gurwits had acquired title to the 17-acre tract by adverse possession.
The Gruenders, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do a claimant's actions, such as posting 'no trespassing' signs, cutting firewood, and clearing brush on a wild and undeveloped tract of land for the statutory period, constitute possession that is hostile, actual, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous enough to establish title by adverse possession?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes, the claimant's actions were sufficient to establish title by adverse possession. The court found that the Gurwits' possession met all five required elements. The possession was 'hostile' because the Gurwits intended to possess, occupy, and control the property as their own, demonstrated by posting signs and exercising dominion over it. It was 'actual' because their acts of dominion—cutting wood, clearing brush—were appropriate for the wild and undeveloped nature of the land. The possession was 'open and notorious' as their activities were visible to passersby and sufficient to put the true owner on notice of their claim. It was 'exclusive' because the Gurwits held the land for themselves and not for another. Finally, their use was 'continuous' in a manner consistent with the property's character, as constant physical occupation is not required for such land. Therefore, the Gurwits' possession over the ten-year statutory period ripened into legal title.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the application of the adverse possession doctrine to wild and unimproved land. It establishes that the legal standards for 'actual' and 'continuous' possession are flexible and must be adapted to the character of the property in question. The case affirms that a claimant does not need to fence, cultivate, or build upon undeveloped land to prove possession, so long as their actions demonstrate dominion and control appropriate for that type of land. This precedent provides important guidance for future title disputes involving rural, recreational, or otherwise undeveloped tracts where traditional signs of ownership are absent.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Gurwit v. Kannatzer (1990)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature