Barlow v. Saxon Holdings Trust
| Decision Date | 21 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | SD 37361 |
| Citation | 656 S.W.3d 29 |
| Parties | Beverly BARLOW, Respondent, v. SAXON HOLDINGS TRUST and Eric Farran and LeAnn Farran as its Trustees, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appellants’ attorney: Paul F. Sherman, Springfield, Missouri.
Respondent's attorney: Cynthia R. Black, Marshfield, Missouri.
Saxon Holdings Trust ("Saxon") appeals the judgment in favor of Respondent Beverly Barlow ("Barlow") on her suit for declaration of title to a parcel of land claimed by both parties. The court held that Barlow has title both by deed and by adverse possession. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Barlow and her husband, Wayne,1 purchased land in 1987 by warranty deed ("Barlow Deed"), which conveyed property described as follows:
The W ½ of the SW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 13; the W ½ of the NW ¼ of Section 24; also beginning at the NE corner of the E ½ of the NE ¼ of Section 23, running thence Southwesterly along the fence 40 rods, thence running South along the fence to a point on the South bank of the Finley Creek , thence running Southeasterly to the SE corner of the SE ¼, NE ¼ of said Section 23, thence North on the Section line to the place of beginning, all being in Township 28, Range 17, Webster County, Missouri. (Emphasis added.)
An existing fence line ran north to south near the western edge of the Barlows’ land, and the Barlows believed when they purchased the land that the fence marked the property line. Since 1987, the Barlows possessed and used the land up to the fence line for grazing cattle and putting up hay.
In 1992, the Barlows’ son, Michael Barlow, purchased a tract of land bordering the Barlows’ property on the west side. Like his parents, Michael used his land for grazing cattle and putting up hay. Michael and his daughter, Whitney, lived on his land. Whitney helped Wayne and Beverly on their farm when she was younger.2 Michael and Wayne occasionally helped on each other's farms, but the two pieces of land were generally kept separate and their uses were not intermingled.
Michael passed away in 2011. Eric and LeAnn Farran purchased Michael's land at a foreclosure sale in 2013 and executed a warranty deed ("Saxon Deed"), conveying the land into Saxon, a trust for which the Farrans are trustees. The Saxon Deed described the land, in relevant part, as follows:
The SE ¼ SE ¼ of Section 14, also a part of the E ½ of the NE ¼ of Section 23 described as follows: beginning at the NE corner of the NE ¼ NE ¼ of said Section 23 and running SW 40 rods; thence due south to Finley Creek ; thence in a southeasterly direction to the SE corner of the SE ¼ NE ¼ .... (Emphasis added.)
In the spring of 2020, Eric Farran viewed a plat map which indicated that the property line between the Saxon and Barlow farms was further east than the fence line. He then engaged a surveyor, Barry Mackey, who conducted a survey of the east boundary of the Saxon property. Mackey's survey concluded that the fence line was not the property line, as both landowners had previously assumed. Instead, Mackey found the property line was on the "40-rod line," a line due south from a point 40 rods southwest from the northeast corner of the Barlow land. After receiving the survey results from Mackey, Eric met with Beverly, Whitney, and the Barlows’ family friend Denzel Young and informed them of the survey findings. In September 2020, Eric put up an electric fence along the 40-rod line in order to mark his claimed property. With this electric fence, the Farrans have denied the Barlows access to the land between the 40-rod line and the original fence.
Shortly after Eric put up the electric fence, Barlow engaged a different surveyor, Gary Drennan, to conduct his own survey of the Barlow land. Unlike Mackey, Drennan determined that the property line was on the original fence line, as the Barlows had always assumed. These conflicting surveys created an area of disputed property comprising approximately 7.5 acres between the original fence and the 40-rod line.
Barlow filed suit against Saxon in the Circuit Court of Webster County, seeking to quiet title to the disputed property. She also claimed title to the property through adverse possession. After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Barlow on both counts, finding the description of the property line in the deeds ambiguous and resolving that ambiguity in favor of Barlow. The trial court also found that Barlow had proven every element of adverse possession. Saxon appealed the judgment.
Saxon presents three claims of error: (1) the trial court erred in finding ambiguity in the deeds and resolving the ambiguity in favor of Barlow3 , (2) the trial court erred in finding that Barlow proved each element of adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence, and (3) the trial court erred in finding adverse possession even though, according to Saxon, Barlow admitted Saxon's title to the disputed property.
Whether a document is ambiguous is a question of law that is reviewed de novo on appeal. Denny v. Regions Bank , 527 S.W.3d 920, 925 (Mo. App. 2017). A deed is ambiguous when its terms "are susceptible of more than one meaning ‘so that reasonable persons may fairly and honestly differ in their construction of the terms.’ " Hinshaw v. M-C-M Props., LLC , 450 S.W.3d 823, 827 (Mo. App. 2014) (quoting Erwin v. City of Palmyra , 119 S.W.3d 582, 585 (Mo. App. 2003) ). An ambiguity exists where there is duplicity, indistinctness, or uncertainty in the meaning of language, i.e., if the language is reasonably open to different constructions. Ethridge v. TierOne Bank , 226 S.W.3d 127, 131 (Mo. banc 2007). A document is not ambiguous merely because the parties disagree as to its construction. Id.
Two types of ambiguities may arise in a document: a patent ambiguity and a latent ambiguity. Emerald Pointe, L.L.C. v. Jonak , 202 S.W.3d 652, 659 (Mo. App. 2006). A patent ambiguity exists on the face of the document. Id. A latent ambiguity exists when a writing is unambiguous on its face, but collateral matters render its meaning uncertain. Id. In the context of land deeds, a latent ambiguity exists when there is no uncertainty in the description of the land on the face of the deed, but an uncertainty "is shown to exist for the first time by matter outside the writing, when an attempt is made to apply the language to the ground." Becker v. Workman , 530 S.W.2d 3, 6 (Mo. App. 1975).
Neither the Barlow Deed nor the Saxon Deed contains a patent ambiguity. The language of neither deed is ambiguous on its face, as neither contains terms that are plainly uncertain and neither is self-contradictory. At issue in this case is a latent ambiguity. The Barlow Deed's language describes the boundary at issue as "running thence Southwesterly along the fence 40 rods, thence running South along the fence to a point on the South bank of the Finley Creek ...." However, no fence runs south at the point 40 rods southwest from the starting point, nor is there evidence that there has ever been such a fence in that location. There is, though, a long-standing fence running south that begins further southwest than the 40-rod point, and this fence follows monuments on the ground from previous surveys. The Saxon Deed does not contain the "along the fence" call, but instead says "running SW 40 rods; thence due south to Finley Creek." The discrepancy between these deeds and the uncertainty in applying the Barlow Deed produces a latent ambiguity.
Ambiguity in a deed exists when reasonable persons may fairly disagree as to the construction of its terms. Hinshaw , 450 S.W.3d at 827 That is the case here. Both parties commissioned surveys of the disputed property, and both surveyors testified at trial as to their conclusions. Surveyor Drennan, who was hired by Barlow, put a greater emphasis on the "along the fence" language and utilized prior survey markers and a 1934 survey of the land to inform his investigation. He ultimately found that Barlow's land extended to the fence line. Alternatively, Surveyor Mackey, who was hired by Saxon, focused more on the "40 rod" language and found the 1934 survey to be less informative. He determined that Barlow's land only extended to the 40-rod line. These two surveyors both have extensive training and experience in the field, both used accepted surveying techniques, and both relied on the same deed language. Yet, they came to different conclusions as to where the boundary between Barlow and Saxon's land is located. This demonstrates that reasonable persons may fairly disagree as to the construction of the Barlow Deed.
Saxon argues that a finding of ambiguity unreasonably ignores the 40-rod point and 40-rod line called out in both deeds. However, Saxon's preferred construction of the deeds would likewise ignore the "along the fence" language in the Barlow Deed. That each party's preferred construction creates tension between different terms in the deeds is a clear sign of ambiguity. Saxon also argues that no uncertainty results from the usage of "along the fence." It cites a dictionary definition of "along" as including "in parallel with the length or direction of, as in a ship sailing...
To continue reading
Request your trial