Coleman v. Hartman

• Citation: 626 S.W.3d 289
• Decision Date: 25 May 2021
• Docket Number: WD 83925
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Parties: Gary COLEMAN, Appellant, v. Heath HARTMAN, et al., Respondents.

626 S.W.3d 289

Gary COLEMAN, Appellant,

v.Heath HARTMAN, et al., Respondents.

WD 83925

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: May 25, 2021

Jennifer M. Snider, Platte City, MO, for appellant.

Mark A. Campbell, Cameron, MO, for respondents.

Before Division Four: Cynthia L. Martin, Chief Judge, Presiding, Lisa White Hardwick, Judge and W. Douglas Thomson, Judge

Cynthia L. Martin, Judge

Gary Coleman ("Coleman") appeals from the trial court's judgment awarding title to 0.35 acres of Coleman's property to Heath Hartman ("Mr. Hartman") and Kellie Hartman ("Mrs. Hartman") (collectively "the Hartmans"). Coleman asserts that the trial court committed error because the evidence did not support the Hartmans' claim of boundary by acquiescence or the Hartmans' claim of adverse possession. Finding no error, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural History¹

Coleman bought approximately 122 acres of farmland in Buchanan County, Missouri from Gerald Lindsey ("Lindsey") and his wife in the summer of 2015. Lindsey had acquired this land in May 1994, and while he owned the land, Lindsey farmed tobacco and other row crops. Prior to purchasing the land from Lindsey, Coleman inspected the property, drove along the perimeter of the property, and checked the fences and pond. Coleman noted fencing that would need to be repaired or replaced in order to run cattle on the land. Based on his inspection, Coleman believed that the land he was purchasing was contained within the existing perimeter fencing. Nonetheless, Coleman required Lindsey to obtain a stake survey prior to closing.

Coleman received the stake survey at closing but did not reinspect the property to observe the boundary stakes. Coleman proceeded with closing, and the sale was finalized.

A few months later, Coleman walked the property and realized that the survey stakes were not on the existing north-south fence line he had believed to be the eastern boundary line of his property. Instead, the stakes were located approximately fifteen feet to the east of the existing north-south fence line.

The adjacent property to the east of Coleman's property was owned by the Hartmans. The Hartmans purchased their property, totaling approximately fifty-five acres, in February 2005 from John Coil ("Coil"). Before purchasing the Coil property, Mr. Hartman walked the property and was told by his real estate agent that the western boundary of the property was the north-south fence line between Coil's property and what was then Lindsey's property.

The Hartmans moved into their home in April 2005, and rented a portion of their land to Gene McMillien ("McMillen"),² who ran cattle on the land. McMillen ran a "hot wire" along the perimeter of the property to contain the cattle, including along the north-south fence line on the property's presumptive western boundary. In 2006, Mr. Hartman decided to sharecrop the property with Jeffrey Dexter ("Dexter"), and McMillen removed his cattle. To make the land suitable for row crops, Mr. Hartman created a buffer strip by mowing and clearing brush, including along the north-south fence line that separated his property from the Lindsey's property to the west. Hartman continued this maintenance of the area along the fence line for more than ten years.

At some point between the summer of 2015 and 2018, Coleman informed Mr. Hartman of his plans to run cattle on his property, including the land east of the north-south fence line up to the surveyed property line. Mr. Hartman told Coleman not to erect a fence on the surveyed property line, which had been denoted by flags, and not to cut down any trees along the existing north-south fence line. Coleman and Hartman had several other conversations about the contested boundary line, and each time Hartman told Coleman that the survey was not controlling because the existing north-south fence line had served as the boundary between the properties for more than ten years. Hartman told Coleman that if a new fence was erected on the surveyed line, the fence "wouldn't stay," a comment Coleman understood to mean that Hartman would tear down new fencing.

On February 1, 2019, Coleman filed a petition ("Petition") against Mr. Hartman in the Circuit Court of Buchanan County. The Petition sought: (1) a declaration that the boundary survey line determined in 2015 was the legal boundary between Coleman's property and the Hartman's property, and that Coleman is the legal owner of the .35 acres of land located between the north-south fence line and the eastern boundary of his property determined by the survey (the "disputed tract"); (2) a preliminary injunction restraining Mr. Hartman from entering onto the disputed tract and attempting to destroy, alter, or otherwise damage any fence installed by Coleman, and restraining Mr. Hartman from disturbing Coleman's livestock located on the disputed tract during the pendency of the action; and (3) an award of attorney's fees. Mr. Hartman filed an answer and counterclaim ("Answer and Counterclaim") which claimed that the existing north-south fence line constitutes the legal boundary between his property and Coleman's property as a result of adverse possession and as a result of boundary by acquiescence. On August 14, 2019, Mr. Hartman filed a motion to join Mrs. Hartman as a necessary party. The motion was granted.

During a bench trial on September 10, 2019, the trial court heard evidence before accompanying the parties to inspect the disputed tract. The trial court then issued a judgment on October 25, 2019. The judgment concluded that the Hartmans presented sufficient evidence "to support that [they] obtained title to the land east of the fence line by adverse possession" so that the existing north-south fence line should serve as the boundary between Coleman's property and the Hartmans' property. The judgment further concluded that "[e]ven if [the] Hartman[s] did not acquire title to the disputed tract by adverse possession, there is evidence Lindsey and Hartman made an oral agreement that the fence line was the boundary line" so that the boundary agreed upon should be considered the true one. The judgment concluded that no award of attorney's fees was appropriate.

The Hartmans filed a motion to amend the judgment on November 13, 2019, that pointed out that the judgment erroneously indicated that the north-south fence line at issue was located on the east side of the Hartmans' property instead of the west side of the Hartmans' property. Then, on November 21, 2019, the Hartmans filed a motion to vacate the judgment that because the judgment was not sufficiently definite to quiet title as it failed to describe the disputed tract by metes and bounds. The motion to vacate essentially asked the trial court to reopen the case to take additional evidence in the form of a legal description for the disputed tract.

On November 22, 2019, the trial court set aside the October 25, 2019 judgment.³ On December 4, 2019, the trial court conducted a hearing, and in a bench note, expressed the intent to enter a judgment "sustaining [the Hartmans'] claim for adverse possession," and ordered the Hartmans "to conduct a survey at their own expense" to determine the legal description of the disputed tract. On December 19, 2019, the trial court entered a corresponding interlocutory judgment ("Interlocutory Judgment") that included findings of fact and conclusions of law that were identical in every material respect to those in the October 25, 2019 judgment, with the exception that the Interlocutory Judgment noted that a hearing would be later conducted to permit the Hartmans to provide the court with evidence of a legal description for the disputed tract.

At a hearing on June 24, 2020, the trial court received in evidence a survey providing a legal description for the disputed tract. The trial court then issued a judgment ("Final Judgment") on June 29, 2020, setting forth the legal description of the disputed tract⁴ "previously found by the Court to belong to [the Hartmans]."

Coleman appeals.⁵

Standard of Review

Appeals from a bench-tried case are reviewed pursuant to the standard set forth in Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). Daniels-Kerr v. Crosby , 484 S.W.3d 798, 801 (Mo. App. W. D 2016). "We will affirm the [trial] court's judgment unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law." Id. We view the evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the judgment. Id. Further, we defer to the trial court's determination as to the weight to be given to the evidence and to the trial court's determination of credibility, as the trial court "is free to believe some, all, or none of the testimony of any witness." A2 Creative Grp., LLC v. Anderson , 596 S.W.3d 214, 218 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (quoting Brasher v. Craig , 483 S.W.3d 446, 450 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) ).

Analysis

Coleman presents two points on appeal. In the first, Coleman argues that the trial court committed error in accepting testimony presented at trial by the Hartmans as "immediately determinative" of ownership of the disputed tract under the legal theory of boundary by acquiescence, and as "conclusive evidence" of the Hartmans' adverse possession claim. Coleman's second point on appeal claims that the trial court erred in finding for the Hartmans on their claim of adverse possession because the Hartmans "failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence all of the required five elements of adverse possession."⁶ We address the points collectively.

The Interlocutory Judgment made factual findings based on the evidence presented by the parties, and concluded as a matter of law that the Hartmans presented sufficient evidence to establish that they had obtained title to the disputed tract via adverse possession. Alternatively, the Interlocutory Judgment found that Lindsey and Hartman had treated the north-south...