DD 5/12/03 Stealing Land From the Homes Associations OK in Mo.

Daily Development for Monday, May 12, 2003
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin
Kansas City, Missouri
dirt@umkc.edu

ADVERSE POSSESSION; REQUIREMENT OF HOSTILITY;
PERMISSIVE USE; "COMMON AREAS:"  Where subdivision lot
owners'  use of adjacent common areas exceed a reasonable exercise of
their right to use common ground, such use for the statutory period may
be the basis for a successful adverse possession claim.

Dobbs v. Knoll, 92 S.W.3d 176 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Three landowners filed suit against the trustees of their subdivision
association to quiet title to the property behind heir respective parcels.
Each of the landowners had used a portion of the common area behind
their home as though it were part of their yard, maintaining it and
landscaping it in a way that made it difficult to access that common area
from anywhere but the landowner's  backyard.

The property in question was shown on the Plat as "Community Area
and Common Easement" and apparently fee ownership was in the
trustees.

In one case, the landowners had been told when they purchased their
home that they owned to the fence at the rear of their property.  After
four years the trustees informed them that this was not correct, and
demanded that the fence be moved.  They did not do so, and the trustees
did nothing. In the other two cases, however, it appeared that the landowners had
simply extended their yard activities into property that they knew was
commonly owned.  They planted gardens, landscaped, installed in one
case a sprinkler system, and in another case holly hedges and landscaping
railroad ties, so that access through the areas, although not impossible,
was impeded.

 The Court held that the couples had each demonstrated all of the
elements of adverse possession for the statutory period.  The trustees'
argued that the homeowners' uses were permissive, the Court responded
that in each case the plaintiffs'  use of the common ground adjacent to
their respective lots "exceeded a reasonable exercise of their right to use
the common ground."

Comment 1: Note that if this property were owned by the individual unit
owners as tenants in common, we might have had a different result.
Here, the commonly owned interest was solely an easement, arguably for
limited common purposes, and uses that went beyond the common
purposes were patently adverse as against the fee owner.  In the case of
property owed in common in fee, each owner theoretically has a
complete right of possession, and even fencing and other exclusive
activities are consistent with the common right unless an intent to "oust"
is made clear or unless the other users manifest an attempt to use the
property and are excluded.

But normally, when a cotenant establishes an adverse claim, it does so
for the benefit of the cotenancy.  Here, the easement in question was
owned by the various subdivision owners in cotenancy, but the owners
each got individual ownership as a consequence of their adverse use.
Makes sense, since they clearly were not acting in their capacity as
cotenants, but it's a little warp on the theory.

Comment 2: Even allowing for the fact that the theory supports the result
here, the editor hates it.  He has no concern about the first case, where
there was clearly a claim of right and a communicated ouster when the
landowner refused to remove the fence.  But the other two cases are a
quite different breed.  The essential issue to the editor is whether the
actions of the landowners in developing their areas were in fact (and not
in theory) excluding others who might have used the properties.  If not,
then, since the purposes of the "easement" were not made clear, why
wouldn't the permitted uses comprehend relatively exclusive activities so
long as no one else was making an attempt to use the property?  Why
should the court here, as it plainly does, aid the landowners in stealing
the commonly owned land?

Readers are encouraged to respond to or criticize this posting.

Items reported on DIRT and in the ABA publications related to it  are for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon in the course of representation or in the forming of decisions in legal matters.  The same is true of all commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT list.  Accuracy of data provided and opinions expressed  by the DIRT editor the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.


Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a
source that is readily accessible by members of
the general public, and should take that fact
into account in evaluating confidentiality
issues.

ABOUT DIRT:

DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious
real estate professionals. Message volume varies,
but commonly runs 5 - 15 messages per work day.

Daily Developments are posted every work day.  To
subscribe, send the message

subscribe Dirt [your name]

to

listserv@listserv.umkc.edu

To cancel your subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the address:

listserv@listserv.umkc.edu

for information on other commands, send the message
Help to the listserv address.

DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only
commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses upon residential real estate matters.  Because real estate brokers generally find this service more valuable, it is named “BrokerDIRT.”  But residential specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list.  If you subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions.

To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message

subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]

to

listserv@listserv.umkc.edu

To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message
signoff BrokerDIRT to the address:

listserv@listserv.umkc.edu

DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association
Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and
the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School
of Law.  Daily Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC
School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants
permission for copying or distribution of Daily
Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that
no charge is imposed for such distribution and
that appropriate credit is given to Professor
Randolph, DIRT, and its sponsors.

DIRT has a WebPage at:
http://www.umkc.edu/dirt/

Members of the ABA Section on Real Property, Probate
and Trust Law or of the National Association of Realtors can subscribe to a quarterly hardcopy report that includes all DIRT Daily Developments, many other cases, and periodic reviews of real estate oriented literature and state legislation by contacting Antonette Smith at (312) 988 5260 or asmith4@staff.abanet.org