adverse possession claim in Missouri

2025(Points One and Two) In Brownfield's first and second points on appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in concluding that Darrin, Angela, and Creighton Storage acquired title to Tract II by adverse possession because the findings with respect to two of the essential elements of an adverse possession claim, hostile possession (Point One), and exclusive possession (Point Two), were against the weight of the evidence. 19 "To acquire title by adverse possession . . . [the] possession must be: (1) hostile, that is, under a claim of right; (2) actual; (3) open and notorious; (4) exclusive; and

2021To succeed on an adverse possession claim, Mr. Scorse must prove his possession is “(1) hostile, that is, under a claim of right, (2) actual, (3) open and notorious, (4) exclusive, and (5) continuous for the necessary period of years prior to the commencement of action.” Watson v. Mense, 298 S.W.3d 521, 526 (Mo. banc 2009).

2000Strubberg v. Roethemeyer, 941 S.W.2d 557, 560 (Mo.App.

1999Strubberg v. Roethemeyer, 941 S.W.2d 557, 560 (Mo.App.1997).

2023Sleepy Hollow Ranch, 373 S.W.3d at 495 -96 (citing Tallent v. Barrett, 598 S.W.2d 602, 606 (Mo. App. S.D. 1980)).

2016Finally, the Littles submit that the evidence is still insufficient given the particular facts of this case because “there is a greater standard of proof required when the parties involved in an adverse possession claim are family members.” Sleepy Hollow Ranch LLC v. Robinson, 373 S.W.3d 485, 496 (Mo.App.S.D.2012).

2025That this holding is not intended to announce a different burden of proof is underscored by our holding in Daniel-Kerr v. Crosby, 484 S.W.3d 798 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016), where we cited to the aforesaid passage from Tallent despite earlier holding that in order to prevail on an adverse possession claim "a claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence" the essential elements of adverse possession.

2025Id. at 802, 805 .

2025"An 'against-the-weight-of-the-evidence' challenge 'presupposes that there is sufficient evidence to support the judgment.'" Sansone v. Fulton, 679 S.W.3d 9 , 14 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023) (quoting Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189, 205 (Mo. banc 2014)).

2021However, in the argument portion of the brief, it is apparent that Coleman effectively contends that no substantial evidence supported finding that actual, open and notorious, or exclusive possession of the disputed tract was established.7 "Substantial evidence is evidence that, if believed, has some probative force on each fact that is necessary to sustain the [trial] court's judgment." ADB Cos. v. Socket Telecom, LLC, 618 S.W.3d 237 , 244 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (quoting Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189, 199 (Mo. banc 2014)).

2023“Failure to prove one of these elements defeats an adverse possession claim.” Id. (citing Underwood v. Hash, 67 S.W.3d 770, 774 (Mo.App. 2002)). “‘Possession is hostile if it is antagonistic to the claims of all others.

2023Underwood v. Hash, 67 S.W.3d 770, 774 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002).

2015For the same reasons previously articulated, we reject that claim. 32 Branson and U.S. Bank rely on Rule 67.01, which provides, inter alia, that “[a] dismissal with prejudice bars the assertion of the same cause of action or claim against the same party.” They also rely on the statement in Golden Valley Disposal, LLC v. Jenkins Diesel Power, Inc., 183 S.W.3d 635, 641 (Mo.App.S.D.2006), that this rule extends “res judicata principles to cases which are dismissed with prejudice without reaching the merits of the litigation.” But Golden Valley Disposal also stands for the proposition that “the ab

2015For the same reasons previously articulated, we reject that claim.32 32 Arvest also contends that Coverdell "failed to raise the arguments presented herein to the trial court." Arvest does not develop this argument any further, and given the effort to reassert Appellants' claims following their initial dismissal, we reject this claim. 46 Branson and U.S. Bank rely on Rule 67.01, which provides, inter alia, that "[a] dismissal with prejudice bars the assertion of the same cause of action or claim against the same party." They also rely on the statement in Golden Valley Disposal, LLC v. Jenkins

1997Green v. Lange, 797 S.W.2d 765, 767 (Mo.App.1990).

1993Green v. Lange, 797 S.W.2d 765, 767 (Mo.App.1990).

2015Humphreys, 408 S.W.3d at 269-70 .

2015Humphreys, 408 S.W.3d at 269-70 .

2012In the absence of additional acts of possession, see id. at 47 , the actual possession element of an adverse possession claim based only upon such actions is not supported by substantial evidence, and a judgment in favor of a claimant for adverse possession must be reversed.

2009In Harris, an adverse possession claim was denied because the evidence showed that plaintiff and her predecessors did no more than allow cattle and horses to have access to the land in dispute, extend a portion of an already existing fence, and provide some maintenance of the fence. 940 S.W.2d at 47 .

2019“Missouri cases have consistently held that to satisfy the ‘hostile,’ i.e. under a ‘claim of right’ element only requires that the adverse possessor show the intent to occupy the disputed 7 property as his own, exclusive of the rights of all others.” DeVore v. Vaughn, 504 S.W.3d 176, 181 (Mo.App. 2016) (emphasis added).

2019Devore v. Vaughn, 504 S.W.3d 176 , 181- 182 (Mo. App. 2016). 15 to defend the insured against any ‘suit’ seeking damages for ‘personal and advertising injury’ to which this insurance does not apply ... 5.

2012Murphy, 289 S.W.3d at 240 .

2009Whether an act constitutes actual possession “depend[s] on the nature and location of the property, the uses to which it can be applied and all the facts *527 and circumstances of a particular case.” Murphy v. Holman, 289 S.W.3d 234, 237 (Mo.App.

1944Dausch v. Crane, 109 Mo. 323, 336, 337 ; *624 19 S. W. 61 .” (Italics ours.) Burnside v. Doolittle, 324 Mo. 722 , 24 S. W. (2d) 1011 , l. c. 1016.

1930If the owner had actual knowledge of the adverse possession and claim, openness and notoriety become unimportant. [Dausch v. Crane, 109 Mo. 323 , 336-7, 19 S.W. 61 .] But it is not the mere occupancy or possession of land which must be known to the true owner in order to prejudice his rights, but its adverse character.

2023See White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298, 308 (Mo. banc 2010).

2023Sleepy Hollow Ranch, 373 S.W.3d at 495 -96 (citing Tallent v. Barrett, 598 S.W.2d 602, 606 (Mo. App. S.D. 1980)).

2023Tallent, 598 S.W.2d at 606 .

2023Scott v. Hicks, 567 S.W.3d 266, 269 (Mo. App. S.D. 2019).

2019See City of South Greenfield, 591 S.W.2d at 161.

2015See Kohler v. Bolinger, 70 S.W.3d 616, 619 (Mo.App.W.D.2002) (“[o]nce the ten-year period has run and the other adverse elements are satisfied, the possessor is vested with title and the record owner is divested”) (quotation omitted).

2015See Kohler v. Bolinger, 70 S.W.3d 33 In 1993, Rule 74.01(a) provided: "Included Matters. 'Judgment' as used in these Rules includes a decree and any order from which an appeal lies." Missouri Court Rules (1993).

2014Witt v. Miller, 845 S.W.2d 665, 667 (Mo. App. E.D.1993).

2012In the context of an adverse possession claim, “[h]ostility does not require ill will or malevolence, but is simply an assertion of ownership adverse to that of the true owner and all othersf.]” Schaumburg v. Heafey, 650 S.W.2d 697, 698 (Mo.App.

2012In the context of an adverse possession claim, “[h]ostility does not require ill will or malevolence, but is simply an assertion of ownership adverse to that of the true owner and all othersf.]” Schaumburg v. Heafey, 650 S.W.2d 697, 698 (Mo.App.

2012Tillman v. Hutcherson, 348 Mo. 473 , 154 S.W.2d 104, 107 (1941); Shoemaker, 994 S.W.2d at 45 .

2012Tillman v. Hutcherson, 348 Mo. 473 , 154 S.W.2d 104, 107 (1941); Shoemaker, 994 S.W.2d at 45 .