Hinkle v. Emmons
| Decision Date | 17 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | 59609,Nos. 59589,s. 59589 |
| Citation | 826 S.W.2d 359 |
| Parties | Henry E. HINKLE, et al., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Lee EMMONS and Ruby Emmons, Defendants/Respondents. Henry E. HINKLE, et al., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Lee EMMONS and Ruby Emmons, Defendants/Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Brown, Arnold, for plaintiff/appellant.
Dennis H. Tesreau, Wegmann, Gasaway, Stewart, Schneider, Dieffenbach, Tesreau & Stoll, P.C., Hillsboro, for defendants/respondents.
Both parties appeal from a judgment following a bench trial in a suit brought by plaintiff to quiet title. We have consolidated the appeals.
The dispute involves a plat of land known as Elm Park subdivision which consists of Lot 1, Lot 2, and Park Drive. Lot 1 is owned by defendants and contains a commercial establishment consisting of a convenience store and a restaurant. It fronts on the south on Elm Drive, and its entire eastern boundary is Park Drive. Its northern boundary is Lot 2 owned by the plaintiff. The only access to Lot 2 is over Park Drive. Defendants made certain improvements to Lot 1 and to Park Drive which included resurfacing a portion of the road and some excavation of the road to change the slope between the traveled portion of Park Drive and Lot 1.
Plaintiff brought this action to quiet title to Park Drive in him and also to quiet title in him to a small triangular parcel next to Lot 2 by adverse possession. He also sought damages for trespass for the defendants' conduct in making improvements to Park Drive which plaintiff contends he owns by virtue of two deeds, one a quit-claim and a subsequent warranty deed. Defendants filed a counterclaim seeking to quiet title to themselves of the triangular parcel of property. At trial the main issue became the ownership of Park Drive. The trial court quieted title to the triangular parcel in plaintiff based upon adverse possession. No question of the correctness of that decision is raised on appeal. The trial court found that Park Drive was a public road by common law dedication and did not belong to either party. It then awarded damages to plaintiff in the amount of $4125. Plaintiff appealed from the determination of the status of Park Drive. Defendants appealed from the award of damages.
Our standard of review in a court tried case has been frequently stated. The decree will be upheld unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, it erroneously declares the law, or it erroneously applies the law. Patterson v. Null, 751 S.W.2d 381 (Mo.App.1988) 1.c. 383. We give deference to the trial court in its determination of the credibility of the witnesses. Most of the evidence in this case was documentary and is not subject to the deference rule.
A public road may be established in three ways: (1) under § 228.190 RSMo 1986; (2) by prescriptive use; or (3) by an implied or common law dedication. Id. at . In the absence of a formal dedication a common law dedication may exist if "there is evidence that the owner clearly showed his intent to dedicate the land for public use and the land was accepted by the public and was so used by the public." Id. at [7-9]. Governmental acceptance is not necessary so long as public acceptance is present. Moon Equipment Co., Inc. v. Hess, 761 S.W.2d 742 (Mo.App.1988) [1, 2]. The evidence here is sufficient to establish a common law dedication.
In the plat filed to establish the subdivision, Park Drive is labeled separately from Lots 1 and 2 and the name given to the area--Park Drive--connotes public use as a street. Both Lots 1 and 2 utilize the Drive for access. No one pays taxes on the area containing the Drive. The county assessor's office shows plaintiff as owning only Lot 2 which does not include any part of Park Drive. The parcel map of the assessor's office shows Park Drive as a platted street. The failure of the plat to contain a specific dedication of the area as a public road does not prevent its dedication for that purpose. Words or markings commonly used to reserve land for public use will be interpreted as setting apart the area for the public. The evidence establishes that the original plat recognized three parcels in the subdivision--Lots 1 and 2 and a public road to service the lots.
It is clear that the public has extensively utilized the southernmost portion of the road for ingress and egress to Lot 1. This constitutes public acceptance of the dedication. Once there is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jungers v. Webster Elec. Coop., Inc.
..., 879 S.W.2d 658, 666 (Mo. App. 1994) ; Plunk v. Hedrick Concrete Prod. Corp. , 870 S.W.2d 942, 944 (Mo. App. 1994) ; Hinkle v. Emmons , 826 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Mo. App. 1992) ; Adams v. Orkin Exterminating Co. , 763 S.W.2d 318, 320 (Mo. App. 1988).7 A summary of the second-amended damages cal......
-
Yonker v. Yonker
...on witnesses, the documentary evidence in this case is not subject to the deference rule[,]” id. at n. 9, citing Hinkle v. Emmons, 826 S.W.2d 359, 361 (Mo.App. E.D.1992). Hinkle makes a similar statement: “Most of the evidence in this case was documentary and is not subject to the deference......
-
Gray v. Builders Square, Inc.
...that the measure of damages to real property is the decrease in value or the cost of restoration, whichever is less. Hinkle v. Emmons, 826 S.W.2d 359 (Mo.App.1992).3 The absence of connecting evidence is complicated by other plausible explanations for the problems in the house. There was ev......
-
Earls v. Majestic Pointe, Ltd., 21017
...the entire roadway and its use in whole or in part that creates the status of a public road under a common law dedication." Hinkle, 826 S.W.2d at 361. With the record in this posture, we conclude, as we did in Busch, that the appropriate disposition of MPL's appeal is to reverse that portio......