Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 516
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.040 (2026)

Possession of land under color of title, effect

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  516.040.  Possession of land under color of title, effect. — The possession, under color of title, of a part of a track or lot of land, in the name of the whole tract claimed, and exercising, during the time of such possession, the usual acts of ownership over the whole tract so claimed, shall be deemed a possession of the whole of such tract.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 1006)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 854; 1919 § 1309; 1909 § 1882

(1960) Evidence as to adverse possession held insufficient to require the setting aside of the trial court's finding to the contrary.  Dunlap v. Hartman (Mo.), 338 S.W.2d 10.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1960–2016 · leading case: Thomas v. B.K.S. Dev. Corp., 77 S.W.3d 53 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Thomas v. B.K.S. Dev. Corp., 77 S.W.3d 53 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “Section 516.040 RSMo 2000 provides: “The possession, under col- or of title, of a part of a tract or lot of land, in the name of the whole tract claimed, and exercising, during the time of such possession, the usual acts of ownership over the whole tract so claimed, shall be…”
Conran v. Girvin, 341 S.W.2d 75 (Mo. 1960). · cites it 6× “, provides that possession, under color of title (the patent from New Madrid County constituted color of title) of a part of a tract of land, in the name of the whole tract claimed, and the exercise during the time of such possession of the usual acts of ownership over the whole…”
Teson v. Vasquez, 561 S.W.2d 119 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “§ 516.040 RSMo. 1969. Thus, color of title is not an element of adverse possession, but it serves to extend actual possession of some portion of the land claimed to constructive possession of the whole tract described in the instrument providing the basis for color of title.”
Stuart A. Devore v. Lillian Vaughn, 504 S.W.3d 176 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “…tract described in the title. See e.g., Moran v. Roaring River Dev. Co., 461 S.W.2d 822, 829 (Mo. 1970); see also Section 516.040.”
Land Clearance for Redevelopment Auth. v. Zitko, 386 S.W.2d 69 (Mo. 1964). · cites it 4× “Section 516.040 is as follows: "The possession, under color of title, of a part of a tract or lot of land, in the name of the whole tract claimed, and exercising, during the time of such possession, the usual acts of ownership over the whole tract so claimed, shall be deemed a…”
Moran v. Roaring River Dev. Co., 461 S.W.2d 822 (Mo. 1970). · cites it 2× “” We add, however, that the application of this rule is subject to the provisions of § 516.040 RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., which provides that possession, under color of title, of a part of a tract of land, in the name of the whole tract claimed, and exercising, during the time of such…”
Bass Pro Outdoor World, L.P. v. Wilson, 965 S.W.2d 890 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “Under Section 516.040, RSMo 1994: The possession, under color of title, of a part of a tract or lot of land, in the name of the whole tract claimed, and exercising, during the time of such possession, the usual acts of ownership over the whole tract so claimed, shall be deemed a…”
Henderson v. Town & Country Grocers of Fredericktown, 978 S.W.2d 850 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “The importance of that, according to Defendants, is found in § 516.040, RSMo 1994, which reads: “The possession, under color of title, of a part of a track [sic] or lot of land, in the name of the whole tract claimed, and exercising, during the time of such possession, the usual…”
Davis v. Realty Exch., Inc., 488 S.W.2d 913 (Mo. 1973). · cites it 3× “, 1970); Section 516.040, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. The judgment of the trial court is not clearly erroneous, Rule 73.”
Burns v. Ozark Beagle Club, 459 S.W.2d 324 (Mo. 1970). “Aside from the problem of appellants’ right to complain of the roadway the roadway is certainly not such a defect in the court’s decree as to nullify the force and effect of the decree. The defendant-respondents do not rely upon the possession of a part of a tract of land under…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.