Maune v. Beste
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1404
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Beste Property was landlocked until 1989, necessitating an easement to the road from the Beste property to Highway A.
- A roadway across the Krakow Store Property to the Beste garage was used continuously starting in 1936, without permission requests, narrowing over time but always open.
- Ownership history: Doss family (1936), Pryor family (1938-1939), Harry and Elizabeth Beste acquire in 1946 and hold until 1989, and subsequent conveyances lead to defendants; Krakow Store Property changes hands multiple times, with overlapping ownership with the Beste Property 1964-1981.
- Plaintiffs (Maunes) sue seeking injunctive relief; trial court grants a prescriptive easement in favor of defendants for ingress/egress.
- On remand, the trial court adopted a survey drawing and metes-and-bounds description to define the easement location; the roadway uses were asserted to be both pedestrian and vehicular.
- Court determines the easement began by 1946, continued through trial, and was not extinguished by merger because complete unity of title never occurred between dominant and servient estates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prescriptive easement existed for ingress/egress to Beste Property | Maune contends no prescriptive path with defined route existed. | Beste asserts long, continuous use created a prescriptive easement for ingress/egress. | Yes; substantial evidence supports a prescriptive easement for pedestrian and vehicular use. |
| Whether the location and scope of the easement are properly defined | Maune argues no precise path or metes-and-bounds description was proven. | Beste and others contend the survey and description accurately capture the easement. | Yes; the trial court’s drawing and metes-and-bounds description are supported by the evidence. |
| Whether the prescriptive easement was extinguished by merger of dominant and servient estates | Maune asserts merger occurred when Elizabeth Beste owned both properties (1964-1981). | Beste argues there was never complete unity of title between the two properties. | Affirmed; no complete unity of title existed to extinguish the easement. |
| Whether the easement, if it existed, was limited to foot traffic only | Maune contends the easement could be broader than pedestrian use. | Defendants contend the evidence supports broader (vehicular) use. | The record supports vehicular and pedestrian use; scope aligns with established use. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whittom v. Alexander-Richardson Partnership, 851 S.W.2d 504 (Mo. banc 1993) (use must be open, continuous, adverse for ten years)
- Custom Muffler and Shocks, Inc. v. Gordon Partnership, 3 S.W.3d 811 (Mo.App. 1999) (long, continuous use creates presumption of adversity)
- Johnston v. Bates, 778 S.W.2d 357 (Mo.App.1989) (less detail in rural easement descriptions permissible)
- Marshall v. Callahan, 229 S.W.2d 730 (Mo.App.1950) (merger extinguishes easement when dominant and servient estates are united)
- Hall v. Morton, 102 S.W.2d 570 (Mo.App.1907) (unity of title required for extinguishment of easement)