Kenneth White and Eleanor White v. George Matthews, 506 S.W.3d 382

Dispute over a 2.44-acre strip (Tract C) located between Plaintiffs' Tract A (south) and Defendant Matthews' Tract B (north); Tract C was included in the quitclaim deed for Tract B but not in the deed Plaintiffs later acquired for Tract A.
For decades the Neighbors family (prior owners of Tract A) physically occupied Tract C and an "Original Fence" ran along what they treated as the boundary, enclosing Tract C with Tract A.
A 2010 survey (commissioned by Richard Neighbors) showed the Original Fence did not mark the true legal boundary; Matthews removed the Original Fence and installed a "New Fence" along the surveyed line.
Plaintiffs purchased Tract A in 2010 and later sued (2013) to quiet title/obtain injunctive relief, asserting their predecessors had adversely possessed Tract C and title vested in them by tacking.
Matthews moved for summary judgment arguing Plaintiffs failed to prove the hostility element of adverse possession; he relied on affidavits from Richard Neighbors and Lorna Neighbors-Cole asserting prior use was permissive.
Trial court granted summary judgment for Matthews; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding genuine disputes of material fact—especially about the hostility/intent of the earlier Neighbors owners—precluded summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Neighbors predecessors adversely possessed Tract C (hostility element)	Neighbors family possessed Tract C under a claim of right (Original Fence) and Plaintiffs can tack predecessors' possession to acquire title	Use of Tract C was permissive with Matthews' consent; therefore possession was not hostile and adverse possession fails	Reversed: genuine factual disputes about predecessors' intent/hostility preclude summary judgment; affidavits offered by Matthews were hearsay as to predecessors and insufficient to negate hostility

ITT Com. Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (standard and de novo review for summary judgment)
Watson v. Mense, 298 S.W.3d 521 (Mo. banc 2009) (erroneous but universally observed boundary can become true boundary by adverse possession)
Flowers v. Roberts, 979 S.W.2d 465 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) (tacking adverse possession of predecessors)
Vecchiotti v. Tegethoff, 745 S.W.2d 741 (Mo. App. E.D. 1987) (elements required to prove adverse possession)
Porter v. Posey, 592 S.W.2d 844 (Mo. App. E.D. 1979) (conveyance of land claimed by adverse possession requires an act to effectuate transfer)