Kruse v. Johnson, 48763
| Decision Date | 02 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 48763,48763 |
| Citation | 689 S.W.2d 114 |
| Parties | Charles R. KRUSE, et ux. and Gregory Boyer, et ux., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Floyd C. JOHNSON, et ux., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Brown, Arnold, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Gerald T. Hoff, Clayton, for defendants-respondents.
Plaintiff-property owners appeal from a judgment denying their request for reformation of a deed. We affirm.
The deed in question was a general warranty deed from co-plaintiff-grantors Charles and Doris Kruse to defendants Floyd and Jewell Johnson. Plaintiff-property owners, the Boyers, were not parties to the deed which they asked the court to reform.
Kruse and wife developed Heege View Second Addition Subdivision located in St. Louis County, Missouri. In September 1969 they deeded Lot 2 of the subdivision to plaintiffs Gregory and Helen Boyer. Mr. Kruse is Mr. Boyer's nephew. The Kruses constructed a residence on Lot 2 for the Boyers so that the eastern edge of the house is so near to the east property line of Lot 2 that a 21" lawn mower will not fit between the southeast corner of the foundation and the property line. The property line in the deed is the platted property line between Lots 1 and 2.
The general warranty deed of April 1973 by which Johnson and wife acquired their property from Kruse and wife contains the legal description, "Lot 1, in Block 7 of Heege View Second Addition as per plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 130, Page 89 of the St. Louis County Records." Subsequently, Johnson constructed a fence between his home on Lot 1 and the Boyer's home on Lot 2. In the process of erecting the fence Mr. Kruse who happened to be visiting the Boyers advised Mr. Johnson the property line was east of the location of the line shown on the plat and described in both of the deeds from Kruse, one to the Boyers and the other to the Johnsons. The line indicated by Mr. Kruse to Mr. Johnson was three feet east of the southwest corner of Lot 1 and 7.25 feet east of the northwest corner of Lot 1 as shown on the recorded plat and the warranty deeds. Johnson built a wire fence along the line indicated by Kruse. As a result the fence was from 3 to 7.25 feet east of the platted property line and as described on the deeds.
In 1981 the Johnsons had the common property line between Lots 1 and 2 surveyed in order to locate a swimming pool in their back yard. See Exhibit. The survey disclosed that the fence was not erected along the property line. The Johnsons moved their fence to the property line. As a result of the move the fence was only eight inches at its closest point from the Boyer's home at its southeast corner.
This law suit constitutes an effort by the Boyers to reform the 1973 Kruse-Johnson deed by redescribing the western boundary of Lot 1 to describe the line on which the fence was first built and before it was moved.
The parties did not request findings of fact or conclusions of law and no findings were made. The trial court found however that neither the Boyers nor the Johnsons were at fault in the proceedings. Plaintiffs rely on an error or mistake made by the The Boyers contend on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to find that there was a mutual mistake of fact between Kruse and wife as grantors and the Johnsons as grantees. The Boyers were not parties to the transaction. They also contend that the trial court found that an error was created and caused by Charles R. Kruse which constitutes a mutual mistake in the preparation of the deed and that this finding requires a reformation of the deed.
common grantor Charles R. Kruse and wife. The trial court "dismissed" plaintiffs' petition for reformation of deed. We construe this to be a judgment in favor of defendants.
We review this appeal from an equity judgment on the principles announced in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). Ethridge v. Perryman, 363 S.W.2d 696, 698 (Mo.1963). The Boyers must prove Flaspohler v. Hoffman, 652 S.W.2d 703, 708 (Mo.App.1983). "The fact that there is evidence in the record which might have supported a different conclusion, however, does not demonstrate that the decree is contrary to the weight of the evidence." Stegemann v. Fauk, 571 S.W.2d 697, 700 (Mo.App.1978).
Within these principles we review appellants' contentions. The Johnsons denied actual notice of the location of the boundary line between Lots 1 and 2 of Heege View Second Addition before purchasing their property and accepting the deed describing the boundary line according to the recorded plat. Sometime thereafter Mr. Johnson erected a fence along the line indicated by Mr. Kruse. On February 22, 1973, two months before the Kruse-Johnson deed, Kruse had a surveyor survey a line approximately halfway between the residence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boes v. Kachur
...as prayed, (2) the mistake, and (3) the mutuality of the mistake. Ethridge v. Perryman, 363 S.W.2d 696, 698 (Mo.1963); Kruse v. Johnson, 689 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Mo.App.1985). Boes must prove, with respect to both deeds, a prior agreement with each party to convey the land within the reformed d......
-
Brinkerhoff Land & Livestock Co. v. Doyle, 15792
...agreement of the parties to describe the property as requested, (2) a mistake, and (3) the mutuality of the mistake. Kruse v. Johnson, 689 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Mo.App.1985). As indicated by the cases cited by Brinkerhoff, the mistake must be shown to be common to both parties. Mills v. Cameron ......
-
Wates v. Joerger, 19639
...deed was prepared other than had been agreed upon; and that the mistake was mutual, i.e., was common to both parties. Kruse v. Johnson, 689 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Mo.App.1985); Mills v. Cameron Mut. Ins. Co., 674 S.W.2d 244, 249 (Mo.App.1984). The trial court tried this case without a jury. The t......