unequivocal claim in Missouri

1958Edie v. Shain, 348 Mo. 119 , 152 S.W.2d 174, 176-177 , it was again stated: “The principle, as stated in all of our prior decisions, may be reduced to this r If the possessor occupies the land in question intending to occupy that particular piece as his own, his occupancy is adverse.

1958Edie v. Shain, 348 Mo. 119 , 152 S.W.2d 174, 176-177 , it was again stated: “The principle, as stated in all of our prior decisions, may be reduced to this r If the possessor occupies the land in question intending to occupy that particular piece as his own, his occupancy is adverse.

2024Hamilton, 791 S.W.2d at 796 .

2023The trial court’s conclusion that the Beals established hostile possession under a claim of right ignores Mr. Beal’s own uncontested testimony and evinces a “firm belief that the judgment is wrong.” Pearson, 367 S.W.3d at 43 .

2023“Possession of land in recognition of a lack of title is insufficient ever to ripen into title by adverse possession.” Hicks, 567 S.W.3d at 274 -76 (citing Reinheimer v. Rhedans, 327 S.W.2d 823, 831 (Mo. banc 1959) (claimant failed to establish hostile possession where claimant’s uncontested 6 testimony indicated that, although he had the right to use the property, he recognized titleholder’s superior claim to the disputed property).

2015Id. ‘“A defendant must make an explicit choice between exercising the right to counsel and the right to self-representation[.]’ ” Id. (quoting U.S. v. Arlt, 41 F.3d 516 (9th Cir.1994)).

2015Id. ‘“A defendant must make an explicit choice between exercising the right to counsel and the right to self-representation[.]’ ” Id. (quoting U.S. v. Arlt, 41 F.3d 516 (9th Cir.1994)).

2015Id. ‘“A defendant must make an explicit choice between exercising the right to counsel and the right to self-representation[.]’ ” Id. (quoting U.S. v. Arlt, 41 F.3d 516 (9th Cir.1994)).

2002Id. at 63 .

1989In their second point, defendants contend that the trial court erroneously quieted title in plaintiff, because plaintiff failed to prove an unequivocal claim of right as an adverse possessor. “[Ojur duty is to affirm the trial court’s judgment unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, it erroneously declares the law, or it erroneously applies the law.” A. Charles Bussen Trust, 723 S.W.2d at 927 ; Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).

1984That defendants sought permission to work on the lots — even from someone arguably without such interest in them as would confer upon her authority to grant permission — strongly suggests that, as of that time, defendants were not asserting the unequivocal claim of ownership required in order for title by adverse possession to ripen. 6 Cases such as Bach v. Standard Oil Co., 345 S.W.2d 144 (Mo.1961), and Riebold v. Smith, 150 S.W.2d 599 (Mo.App. 1941), the latter of which will be discussed more fully, infra, indicate that even seemingly trivial acts of equivocation on the part of an adverse po

1959Bell v. Barrett, Mo., 76 S.W.2d 394 ; Mooney v. Canter, Mo., 311 S.W.2d 1 ; Landers v. Thompson, 356 Mo. 1169 , 205 S.W.2d 544 .

1959Bell v. Barrett, Mo., 76 S.W.2d 394 ; Mooney v. Canter, Mo., 311 S.W.2d 1 ; Landers v. Thompson, 356 Mo. 1169 , 205 S.W.2d 544 .

1959Bell v. Barrett, Mo., 76 S.W.2d 394 ; Mooney v. Canter, Mo., 311 S.W.2d 1 ; Landers v. Thompson, 356 Mo. 1169 , 205 S.W.2d 544 .

1951His possession of the residence was clearly coupled with “an unequivocal claim of ownership.” Bell v. Barrett, (Mo. Sup.) 76 SW 2d 394 , and Buck v. McMinn, supra. Respondent contends the 10 year limitation is inapplicable to partition suits, citing [103] Armor v. Frey, 253 Mo. 447 , 161 SW 829 ., However, in that case, and in the eases cited therein, possession by a tenant adverse to his cotenants was not involved.

1951His possession of the residence was clearly coupled with “an unequivocal claim of ownership.” Bell v. Barrett, (Mo. Sup.) 76 SW 2d 394 , and Buck v. McMinn, supra. Respondent contends the 10 year limitation is inapplicable to partition suits, citing [103] Armor v. Frey, 253 Mo. 447 , 161 SW 829 ., However, in that case, and in the eases cited therein, possession by a tenant adverse to his cotenants was not involved.

1940On the other hand, if the improvements are located on what is supposed to be the true line, and the party making them intends to claim only to the true line (to be thereafter ascertained or whenever and wherever it might be located), his possession is not adverse. [Milligan v. Fritts, 226 Mo. 189 , 125 S. W. 1101 ; Diers v. Peterson, 290 Mo. 249, 256, 257 , 234 S. W. 792 .] In Bell v. Barrett, supra, the court said, 76 S. W. (2d) 1 . c. 397: “In short, the determining factor is not what the encroaching owner knew about the true boundary line, but what he intended to unequivocally claim was his

1940On the other hand, if the improvements are located on what is supposed to be the true line, and the party making them intends to claim only to the true line (to be thereafter ascertained or whenever and wherever it might be located), his possession is not adverse. [Milligan v. Fritts, 226 Mo. 189 , 125 S. W. 1101 ; Diers v. Peterson, 290 Mo. 249, 256, 257 , 234 S. W. 792 .] In Bell v. Barrett, supra, the court said, 76 S. W. (2d) 1 . c. 397: “In short, the determining factor is not what the encroaching owner knew about the true boundary line, but what he intended to unequivocally claim was his

1940On the other hand, if the improvements are located on what is supposed to be the true line, and the party making them intends to claim only to the true line (to be thereafter ascertained or whenever and wherever it might be located), his possession is not adverse. [Milligan v. Fritts, 226 Mo. 189 , 125 S. W. 1101 ; Diers v. Peterson, 290 Mo. 249, 256, 257 , 234 S. W. 792 .] In Bell v. Barrett, supra, the court said, 76 S. W. (2d) 1 . c. 397: “In short, the determining factor is not what the encroaching owner knew about the true boundary line, but what he intended to unequivocally claim was his

1916Louis v. Theatre Co., 202 Mo. 690 .] That prima-facie case must be overcome “in the most satisfactory manner.” [Morse v. City of West Port, 110 Mo. 502 .] The language of appellant’s counsel is an unequivocal claim that it has no need for sewers and is under no obligation to furnish them to others; in other words, that its cemetery, for the purpose of sewer construction at least, has ceased to be. a part of the city within whose limits it is situated.

1916Louis v. Theatre Co., 202 Mo. 690 .] That prima-facie case must be overcome “in the most satisfactory manner.” [Morse v. City of West Port, 110 Mo. 502 .] The language of appellant’s counsel is an unequivocal claim that it has no need for sewers and is under no obligation to furnish them to others; in other words, that its cemetery, for the purpose of sewer construction at least, has ceased to be. a part of the city within whose limits it is situated.