Roger and Nancy Tiemann, Plaintiffs/Respondents v. Marion E. Nunn, and Randall and Marsha Little
495 S.W.3d 804
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Property: 17-acre parcel in Marion County (4.59 acres of tillable semicircle + ~12.41 acres wooded), contiguous with a 133-acre Nunn family field across the Lewis County line; only vehicular access via private road on Nunn farm.
- Chain: Rosella Kolthoff inherited sole title to the parcel (paid taxes 1987–2008) and sold to the Littles in 2009; Kolthoff rarely visited or used the tract.
- Possession: Roger Tiemann farmed the entire field (including the 4.59-acre portion) with the Nunn family since 1965; he maintained a levy on the Property, controlled access, granted hunting permission, and was listed as FSA operator in agency records.
- Dispute & procedure: Tiemanns filed to quiet title by adverse possession in 2012 after Littles purchased; trial in 2014 resulted in judgment for the Tiemanns; Littles appealed.
- Key factual conflicts: testimony differed on whether Kolthoff or FSA had granted permission to farm; Littles claimed lack of access and no notice of adverse use; trial court credited Tiemanns’ dominion and denied permissive-use defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tiemann) | Defendant's Argument (Little) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actual possession of entire parcel | Tiemanns cultivated the 4.59 acres, maintained levy, controlled access, neighbors recognized their use | Tiemanns’ activity limited to the field; wooded 12.41 acres not actively used | Actual possession found for entire parcel; lower standard for wild/wooded land applied |
| Open and notorious possession | Farming, levy maintenance, neighbor recognition made possession conspicuous | Kolthoff lacked actual knowledge; no direct notice given | Possession was sufficiently conspicuous and commonly known; open and notorious satisfied |
| Hostility (non-permissive) | Tiemanns intended to occupy as owners; conduct showed dominion | Testimony that Kolthoff/FSA authorized farming; use permissive | Trial court could disbelieve permissive-use testimony; hostility inferred from acts |
| Family-context higher standard | N/A | Littles argued heightened proof required because parties are related | Family relation was distant; higher standard inapplicable given strong adverse-possession evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of appellate review in civil bench trials)
- Dumproff v. Driskill, 376 S.W.3d 680 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (elements of adverse possession; different treatment for wild land)
- Murphy v. Holman, 289 S.W.3d 234 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (must show physical possession of entire area when without color of title)
- Whiteside v. Rottger, 913 S.W.2d 114 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995) (sufficient adverse possession where only workable uses—fencing, hunting, timber clearing—were exercised)
- Kohler v. Bolinger, 70 S.W.3d 616 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (hostility requires intent to occupy as one’s own; intent inferred from acts)
- Hearod v. Baggs, 169 S.W.3d 198 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005) (tax payment is not conclusive on adverse-possession claim)