|
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 |