Dumproff v. Driskill
376 S.W.3d 680
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Dumproffs appeal trial ruling that Carol Driskill acquired disputed land by adverse possession.
- Disputed parcels lie between the 1953 fence and the 2006 survey line, with cross-fence on Tract C built by Driskills in 1973.
- Evidence shows Driskills historically used Rabbit Ranch, including grazing, hunting, and fence maintenance.
- A 2006 survey revealed fence line deviations from the legal boundaries, creating five disputed tracts.
- Trial court found Driskills possessed Tracts A, C, and E by adverse possession and Dumproffs possessed B and D; on appeal, Dumproffs challenge the sufficiency of actual possession, open/notorious possession, and the ten-year requirement.
- Court reverses as to A and E, affirms as to C, and remands for judgment consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actual possession of disputed Tracts A, C, E | Dumproffs: Driskills lacked actual possession on A and E | Driskills: acts like hunting, fencing, and maintenance show actual possession, especially for C | A and E lack substantial evidence of actual possession; C shows actual possession |
| Open and notorious possession of A, C, E | Dumproffs: no open/notorious acts to put owners on notice | Driskills: cross-fence and continued enclosure provided notice | A and E not shown; C shown open/notorious by cross-fence and continuing use |
| Ten-year continuous possession for Tract C | Dumproffs: no ten-year continuity of elements | Driskills: cross-fence and ongoing occupancy satisfied ten-year period | Tract C satisfied ten-year continuous possession; sufficient for adverse possession |
| Hostility and exclusivity of possession for Tract C | Dumproffs: presumption of adversity not established | Driskills: boundary mistaken but possessed and used land as own; exclusivity shown | Driskills' possession was hostile and exclusive for the statutory period |
| Boundary concepts and sufficiency of tacking | Dumproffs rely on boundary by acquiescence theory (not fully pursued) | Boundary by acquiescence not primary theory; focus is adverse possession evidence | Not necessary to resolve boundary-by-acquiescence; decision rests on adverse-possession elements |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Brill, 302 S.W.3d 716 (Mo. App. 2010) (establishes the five elements of adverse possession and tacking)
- Flowers v. Roberts, 979 S.W.2d 465 (Mo. App. 1998) (ten-year period requires all elements to be met continuously)
- Martens v. White, 195 S.W.3d 548 (Mo. App. 2006) (actual possession, open and notorious, and use of acts evidencing ownership)
- Nutting v. Reis, 326 S.W.3d 127 (Mo. App. 2010) (hostility and exclusivity can be inferred when boundary mistaken yet possession occurs)
- Murphy v. Holman, 289 S.W.3d 234 (Mo. App. 2009) (possession acts must be more than mere hunting or grazing to prove adverse possession)
- Schaumburg v. Heafey, 650 S.W.2d 697 (Mo. App. 1983) (presumption of adversity when land is possessed as own under mistaken boundary)
- City of Gainesville v. Morrison Fertilizer, Inc., 158 S.W.3d 872 (Mo. App. 2005) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in land disputes)
- Dobbs v. Knoll, 92 S.W.3d 176 (Mo. App. 2002) (framework for actual possession analysis on undeveloped land)