Hill v. Eads

• Decision Date: 24 June 1998
• Docket Number: No. 21892,21892
• Citation: Hill v. Eads, 970 S.W.2d 882 (Mo. App. 1998)
• Parties: Loren J. HILL and Margie Hill, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Charles S. EADS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 882

970 S.W.2d 882

Loren J. HILL and Margie Hill, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v.Charles S. EADS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21892.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Southern District,

Division One.

June 24, 1998.

Charles Buchanan, Joplin, for Defendant-Appellant.

J. Gregory Powell, Roberts, Fleischaker, Williams, Wilson & Powell, Joplin, for Plaintiffs-Respondents.

PREWITT, Judge.

Plaintiffs sought to enjoin Defendant from interfering with their removal of a building from real property owned by Defendant.Following non-jury trial, Plaintiffs received the relief requested.Defendant appeals.

Review is under Rule 73.01(c).For an interpretation of that rule, seeIn Re Marriage of Lafferty, 788 S.W.2d 359, 361(Mo.App.1990)."Due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to have judged the credibility of witnesses."Rule 73.01(c)(2).Specific findings of fact were not made."All fact issues upon which no specific findings are made shall be considered as having been found in accordance with the result reached."Rule 73.01(a)(3).

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in two respects.In his first point, Defendant asserts that the trial court erred "because the building was constructed by a tenant on land owned by the Defendant and under Missouri law titled improvements made by a tenant vest with the land owner."Countering this argument, Plaintiffs assert that there was no landlord-tenant relationship but that they had a license to construct and use the building on Defendant's land.Kimack v. Adams, 930 S.W.2d 505, 507(Mo.App.1996), states:

A landlord-tenant relationship is created when: (1) there is a reversion in the landlord; (2) creation of an estate in the tenant either at will or for a term less than that which the landlord holds; (3) transfer of exclusive possession and control of the tenant; and (4) a contract.

A license is a privilege to enter certain premises for a stated purpose and does not vest any title, interest or estate in the licensee.Hermann v. Lynnbrook Land Co., 806 S.W.2d 128, 130(Mo.App.1991).A license, generally, can be revoked at the will of the licensor.Id.

For there to be a landlord-tenant relationship, it must be shown that the agreement gave the tenant exclusive possession of the premises, or a portion thereof, and if the evidence shows "only that the agreement conferred a non-exclusive privilege to use or occupy the premises, then the agreement will be deemed a license."Chubb Group of Ins. Cos. v. C.F. Murphy & Assoc., Inc., 656 S.W.2d 766, 778(Mo.App.1983).By asserting that a landlord-tenant relationship was created, Defendant had the burden to establish by the evidence, facts and circumstances that such a relationship existed.Sherman Inv. Co. v. Sheehan, 199 S.W.2d 922, 925(Mo.App.1947).

There was evidence that Plaintiffs had only a non-exclusive right in the use of the premises.The trial court thus had a reasonable basis to find that Defendant did not meet his burden of proof and that there was no landlord-tenant relationship, but rather that Plaintiffs were granted a license.The parties have not cited any cases in Missouri or elsewhere regarding the right of a licensee to remove a building he constructed on the owner's land.Regarding the right of the licensee, Plaintiffs cite only the language in Hermann, 806 S.W.2d at 130, stating:

In order to avoid an otherwise harsh working of the law, courts of equity may apply equitable estoppel in situations where the licensee made material expenditure of money or labor to secure the enjoyment of his use.Gibson v. Sharp, 277 S.W.2d 672, 677(Mo.App.1955).In such cases the relations of the parties may not be severed at the whim and by the act of the licensor alone.They may only be severed, if at all, on equitable principles.Id.

We likewise have found no Missouri decisions on this specific issue.In Forbes v. Forbes, 137 N.J. Eq. 520, 46 A.2d 62(N.J.Ch.1946), the defendant wished to remove two buildings on another's land.Regarding this right, in a syllabus prepared by the court, it is stated at 62-63:

2.Permission from the owner of land to another to erect and occupy a building upon his premises, altho not given in writing, will make the building, when erected, the property of the builder.But this permission, properly called a license, is revocable at any time; on revocation, the licensee is entitled to the building and may remove it.[¹

....

4.The doctrine that a structure, however costly, if placed upon the land of another by permission, which permission may be recalled at any time, becomes, in the absence of specific agreement, irrevocably attached to the land upon which it is placed, is manifestly opposed to the intention implied in the very transaction.The inference springing out of such a license is that the land used is to be left as found, and the property so placed thereon shall remain the property of the user, and be removable as such.

Forbes is consistent with the language in Hermann above quoted, and we follow Forbes.The trial court was justified in finding that the parties were operating under a license agreement, and, as there was no contrary understanding, the Plaintiffs had a right to remove the building.Point I is denied.²

For his second point, Defendant asserts that the court erred "because the evidence...