Rohner v. Beets
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 441
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Rohner bought Lot 29 in 2001 and treated the tree line as the western boundary, maintaining and improving up to the tree line, including a pave-stone wall and planting near the line.
- Beets bought Lot 30 (and already owned Lot 31) in 2008, later discovering in 2011 that Lot 30’s eastern boundary lay east of the tree line, creating a Disputed Tract of 292.07 square feet.
- From 2001 to 2010 Rohner used the Disputed Tract openly and notoriously, consistent with treating the tree line as Lot 29’s boundary, and believed he owned land there.
- In 2010 Rohner asked Beets for permission to cross Lot 30 to rebuild the retaining wall; Beets granted limited permission in exchange for Beets’ lights being blacked out.
- Beets later removed vegetation and portions of the wall from the Disputed Tract and surveyed Lot 30, reinforcing Beets’ claim to a boundary east of the tree line.
- Rohner sued Beets to quiet title to the Disputed Tract by adverse possession; the trial court found Rohner’s possession hostile for ten years and not interrupted by Beets’ permission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Beets’ permission to cross Lot 30 destroyed Rohner’s hostility | Beets argues the June 2010 permission defeated Rohner’s hostile possession. | Rohner asserts permission to cross Lot 30 did not authorize possession of the Disputed Tract. | No; hostility remained; permission did not nullify adverse possession |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper v. Carns, 263 S.W.3d 729 (Mo.App. W.D. 2008) (permissive use defeats hostility; factual inquiry required)
- Ross Farms, Inc. v. Moore, 873 S.W.2d 308 (Mo.App. S.D. 1994) (permissive use depends on scope of permission; no bright-line rule)
- Leonard v. Robinson, 276 S.W.3d 868 (Mo.App. E.D. 2009) (credibility of witnesses; permission scope to specific land matters)
- Underwood v. Hash, 67 S.W.3d 770 (Mo.App. S.D. 2002) (unilateral notice or letters cannot compel a legal conclusion that hostility is defeated)
- Newbill v. Forrester-Gaffney, 181 S.W.3d 114 (Mo.App. E.D. 2005) (evidence supports permissive use when shown by substantial facts)
- Brokhausen v. Waubansee, 65 S.W.3d 598 (Mo.App. S.D. 2002) (permissive use requires discernible owner authorization; not proven here)
- Sleepy Hollow Ranch LLC v. Robinson, 373 S.W.3d 485 (Mo.App. S.D. 2012) (burden of proof in adverse possession and related presumptions)
- Watson v. Mense, 298 S.W.3d 521 (Mo. 2009) (adverse possession elements and preponderance standard)