Herring v. Behlmann, 52586
| Decision Date | 11 August 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 52586,52586 |
| Citation | 734 S.W.2d 311 |
| Parties | Deward L. HERRING and Pauline Herring, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Lambert E. BEHLMANN and Alma M. Behlmann, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Dan B. Dildine, Troy, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Anthony Vaiana, St. Louis, for defendants-respondents.
This is an appeal by Deward L. Herring and Pauline Herring from an order of the Lincoln County Circuit Court granting summary judgment to respondents, Lambert E. Behlman and Alma M. Behlman, on appellants' claims for slander of title, abuse of process and tortious interference with contract.
The events which gave rise to this action began in 1983 when appellants sought to sell a section of their property in Lincoln County only to learn after entering into a contract for the sale of that property that a portion of the tract was titled in the name of the Behlmans; the respondents here. Appellants then approached the respondents, obtained their admission that they had never used that area of land and asked them to execute a quitclaim deed to the area. Respondents refused, but offered to sell appellants the disputed acreage. Appellants refused the offer and instituted a quiet title action, alleging that they and their predecessors in interest had gained title to the disputed area by adverse possession. In the interim, however, the proposed purchasers of the tract withdrew from their contract to purchase, allegedly because of the title dispute.
The quiet title action was resolved on its merits in favor of appellants who then sold the tract which they had initially planned to sell, but at a lower price than that specified in the first contract for sale of the property. This action ensued based on the theory that respondents acted improperly in refusing to quitclaim the disputed acreage and in contesting the appellants' claim in the quiet title action.
Appellants contend here that they stated causes of action in all three counts, slander of title, count one, abuse of process, count two, and tortious interference with contract, count three, and that there were material issues of fact in dispute which precluded the entry of summary judgment. We disagree.
There is no dispute that prior to entry of judgment in the quiet title action, the record owners of the property at issue were the respondents. When appellants contracted to sell the disputed acreage, respondents did not come forward to object or to interfere with the contract. They simply refused to execute a quitclaim deed for the area when they were approached by appellants. Respondents did not bring a quiet title action, but only responded to appellants' allegations by defending the action after being named defendants.
Appellants have failed to cite any authority, and this court has failed to find any authority, for the proposition that the record owner of a piece of property when confronted by a claimant who alleges that he has acquired title by adverse possession is required to accept that assertion. Nor is there any authority to the effect that the record owner must execute a quitclaim deed in response to a claim of title by adverse possession. If this were the case, there would be no need for quiet title actions in adverse possession cases. Even if, as appellants assert, respondents were not using the disputed acreage and had not, prior to being approached by appellants, known that they held the record title to the area, respondents were entitled to stand on the record title and require appellants to prove their claim of adverse possession.
Under the case law, a claimant who asserts title by adverse possession bears the burden of establishing that he has met the requirements of open, exclusive and notorious possession adverse to the claim of the record owner(s) on a continuing basis for the statutory period. He is not entitled to acquiescence by the record owner(s), Allen v. Wiseman, 359 Mo. 1026, 224 S.W.2d 1010, 1012 (1949), and the holder of record title is not liable in a slander of title action for requiring the claimant to prove his claims.
The specific statements made by respondents in their pleadings in the quiet title action or in the judicial proceedings involved in that action were also subject to an absolute privilege and cannot form the basis for a slander of title action. Laun v. Union Electric Co. of Missouri, 350 Mo. 572, 166 S.W.2d 1065, 1069 (1942); Greening v. Klamen, 652 S.W.2d 730, 734 (Mo.App.1983).
Appellants also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arbors At Sugar Creek Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Jefferson Bank & Trust Co.
...conclusion." Pipefitters Health & Welfare Trust v. Waldo R., Inc., 760 S.W.2d 196, 198 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988); Herring v. Behlmann, 734 S.W.2d 311, 313-314 (Mo. App. E.D. 1987). Here, Homeowners pursued the instant action to accomplish a lawful end. They sought injunctive relief and declarato......
-
Hanrahan v. Nashua Corp., 53608
...or relationship; (4) Absence of justification; and (5) Damages resulting from defendant's conduct. See, e.g., Herring v. Behlmann, 734 S.W.2d 311, 314 (Mo.App.1987). Plaintiff's petition alleges defendant's acts constituting "interference" included setting unrealistic sales quotas, restrict......
-
Advanced Physical Therapy, LLC v. Apex Physical Therapy, LLC
...lawsuit to its authorized conclusion regardless of how evil a motive he possessed at the time.”) (citation omitted); Herring v. Behlmann, 734 S.W.2d 311, 313 (Mo.Ct.App. 1987) (“the foundation of a suit for abuse of process is that the previous claim was brought for a collateral purpose”) (......
-
Community Title Co. v. Roosevelt Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n, 72315
... ... Herring v ... Behlmann, 734 S.W.2d 311, 314 (Mo.App.1987) ... The business expectancy ... ...