Fairdealing Apostolic Church, Inc. v. Casinger
353 S.W.3d 396
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- 1936 deed to a half-acre tract for the Pentecostal Assembly of Jesus Christ and successors; church served unincorporated until 2003 when incorporated as Fairdealing Apostolic Church, Inc.
- Appellant acquired land south and east of the church in 1989; a tree line east of the church and remnants of a fence were thought by members to mark the property line but did not.
- A .14-acre strip lay between the tree line and the 1936 deed boundary; church use extended onto the strip via a 1996 building addition and parking lot.
- In 1995 the church considered surveying and legal action but did not pursue; Respondent later obtained its own survey in 2009 and sought to quiet title to the strip.
- Trial court ruled in Respondent’s favor; Respondent argued adverse possession and that it was the true successor to the church.
- Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence of adverse possession and improper joinder of parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of adverse possession evidence | Casinger asserts no ten-year continuous possession by Respondent. | Fairdealing Apostolic Church, Inc. possessed the strip via its predecessors and actions; tacking allowed. | Sufficient evidence of adverse possession, including tacking from prior church use. |
| Hostile and exclusive possession elements | Respondent’s possession was not hostile or exclusive. | Church members demonstrated dominion and exclusive use; hostility shown by intent to possess. | Hostile and exclusive possession established through dominion and exclusive use by church members. |
| Continuous possession for ten years and tacking | Respondent lacked the ten-year continuous period and could not tack to prior occupants. | Ten years can be tacked from predecessors; continuous possession far exceeded ten years. | Ten-year continuous possession established via tacking to the unincorporated church, exceeding ten years. |
| Necessity of joinder of parties | Heirs of original trustees might be necessary parties due to competing claims. | Quiet title against adjacent party can be resolved without joining non-parties; non-joinder not required. | No necessary party required; decision between Respondent and Appellant sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kitterman v. Simrall, 924 S.W.2d 872 (Mo.App. 1996) (ten-year adversity and tacking principles; consecutive periods allowed)
- Martens v. White, 195 S.W.3d 548 (Mo.App. 2006) (elements of adverse possession)
- Watson v. Mense, 298 S.W.3d 521 (Mo. banc 2009) (hostile possession includes mistaken belief of ownership)
- Menkens v. Blumenthal, 27 Mo. 198 (Mo. 1858) (tacking and possession from prior occupants; proof not limited to deeds)
- Erwin v. City of Palmyra, 119 S.W.3d 582 (Mo.App. 2003) (quiet title scope and party participation considerations)
- Bailey v. Williams, 326 S.W.2d 115 (Mo. banc 1959) (quiet title against adverse claimants; necessity of joinder)
- German Evangelical Protestant Congregation of Church of Holy Ghost v. Schreiber, 209 S.W. (Mo. 1918) (historic quiet title principles and party interests)
- In re Marriage of Haugh, 978 S.W.2d 80 (Mo. App. 1998) (equitable considerations in property-related proceedings)