Robertson v. Mauzey

Decision Date09 May 2017
Docket NumberWD 79039
Citation518 S.W.3d 864
Parties David A. ROBERTSON, Sarah C. Surratt, and Joseph M. Robertson, Appellants, v. David Lee MAUZEY, Charles William Mauzey and the Unknown Heirs, Devisees, Grantees, Assignees, Donees, Alienees, Legatees, Administrators, Representatives, Guardians, Conservators, Mortgages, Trustees, Successors, and Assigns, of Leola Mauzey, and All Other Persons, Corporations, or Successors Claiming By, Through, or Under Leola Mauzey or any of Them, Respondents.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

William J. Daily, Glasgow, MO for appellants.

Lesa L. Bonnett, Macon, MO for respondents.

Before Division Three: Alok Ahuja, P.J., and Victor C. Howard and James E. Welsh, JJ.

Alok Ahuja, Judge

David A. Robertson, Joseph M. Robertson, and Sarah C. Surratt (the "Robertsons") appeal from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Chariton County, which rejected their claim of adverse possession against David Lee Mauzey and Charles William Mauzey (the "Mauzeys") following a bench trial. We reverse.

Factual Background

This appeal concerns the ownership of a parcel of real estate totaling 530 acres and located in Chariton County ("the Property"). The Robertsons, three siblings, contend that they own the entire property. The trial court instead found that the Mauzeys own an undivided 1/12 interest in the Property.

The ownership dispute dates back to a conveyance made in 1931. On October 21, 1931, David C. Robertson, a widower, conveyed the Property by warranty deed in equal shares to his six children: David Hurley Robertson, Fred Robertson, Nellie Glenn, Melber Robertson, Carrie Shackelford, and Leola Mauzey. The 1931 conveyance was subject to David C. Robertson's life estate.

"The Robertsons" are the three children of David Hurley Robertson and his wife Naomi Robertson. The Mauzeys' purported interest in the Property derives from the share deeded in 1931 to Leola Mauzey.

The following diagram illustrates the relevant family relationships.

?

At the time of the 1931 deed, Leola Mauzey was married to David Mauzey. The couple had no children together. Leola Mauzey died in 1933. Leola Mauzey's estate was not probated, and she did not convey her interest in the Property to anyone before her death. At the time of Leola Mauzey's death, the Property remained subject to David C. Robertson's life estate.

After Leola Mauzeys' death, David Mauzey married Marguerite Mauzey. The couple had two children, the Mauzeys.

David C. Robertson died on February 12, 1938.

On May 24, 1952, Fred Robertson died intestate, leaving no spouse or children. His interest in the property passed in equal shares to his four surviving siblings: David Hurley Robertson, Nellie Glenn, Melber Robertson, and Carrie Shackelford.

In 1954 Melber Robertson conveyed "a ¼ interest" in the Property to David Hurley Robertson and his wife Naomi Robertson. Nellie Glenn and Carrie Shackelford followed suit in 1956 and 1959 respectively, each conveying a ¼ interest in the Property to David Hurley Robertson and Naomi Robertson. The three deeds were publicly recorded. Presumably, the siblings transferred one-quarter interests in the Property in these transactions, rather than one-fifth interests, because they believed that Leola Mauzey's interest had been extinguished when she predeceased her father, or that her interest had been transferred by intestate succession to her father and surviving siblings, and then to the surviving siblings on David C. Robertson's death. As a result of the 1950's conveyances, David Hurley Robertson and his wife Naomi Robertson owned the entirety of the Property, with the possible exception of any interest owned by Leola Mauzey or her heirs.

David Mauzey died on August 19, 1974. His second wife, Marguerite, predeceased him, and thus the Mauzeys were his sole heirs. David Lee Mauzey acted as the executor of his father's estate. The inventory for David Mauzey's estate did not list any interest in the Property.

On October 4, 1977, David Hurley Robertson and Naomi Robertson conveyed the whole title to the Property to themselves as husband and wife. (Prior to that time, David Hurley Robertson had individually owned the share of the Property he received in the 1931 conveyance from his father.) The 1977 conveyance was made by Warranty Deed, and was publicly recorded.

David Hurley Robertson died in 1988, and Naomi Robertson died on September 9, 1993. The Property was distributed to the Robertsons by a court order of distribution in the probate estate of Naomi Robertson. This order was recorded on August 10, 1994.

The 150 acres of farmland on the Property is currently operated by Bill Hayes, grandson of Carrie Shackelford, on behalf of the Robertsons. Hayes has taken care of the Property since the 1970's, farming it on a crop-share basis. Hayes testified that the Property is known as the Robertson farm, and that he frequently asks people to leave the Property on behalf of the Robertsons. Hayes testified that he does not know the Mauzeys, and believed the Property to be owned and controlled entirely by the Robertsons.

In anticipation of a possible reorganization or sale of their interests in the Property, the Robertsons obtained an informational title commitment from Chariton Abstract & Title Company in 2013. The title company reported that the Property was owned by the Robertsons and Leola Mauzey. Further investigation revealed the identity of the Mauzeys, and their relationship to Leola Mauzey.

The Robertsons filed a petition to quiet title against the Mauzeys, asserting a claim of adverse possession.

Following a bench trial, the circuit court entered its judgment, which rejected the Robertsons' claim of adverse possession, and ruled that the Mauzeys held an undivided 1/12 interest in the Property.

The court concluded that, when Leola Mauzey died without children in 1933, her surviving husband David Mauzey took one-half of her 1/6 interest in the Property by operation of the intestate succession laws, with the other half passing in equal shares to Leola's father David C. Robinson and to her five surviving siblings. The circuit court held that after David Mauzey's death in 1974, his 1/12 interest passed to his two children, the Mauzeys.

The circuit court found that the Robertsons were not aware of the Mauzey's potential interest in the Property until the title search was conducted in 2013, and that the Mauzeys were not aware of their potential interest until they were served with the quiet title action in 2015.

The judgment found that

[The Robertsons] have satisfied any and all tax obligations arising from the [Property] from at least 2000 to the present. [The Robertsons] or their respective agents have farmed, operated, and otherwise maintained the [Property] for at least as many years. [The Robertsons] or their respective agents have derived all profits and paid all expenses relating to the [Property] from at least 1989 to the present.

The judgment also found that "[the Mauzeys] have contributed no funds of any kind in regards to the maintenance, upkeep, or tax obligations arising from the [Property]," and "have received no benefits or profits from the operation of the [Property]."

Despite its findings concerning the Robertsons' long-standing and exclusive possession and control of the Property, the trial court concluded that the Robertsons had failed to prove that they acquired the Mauzeys' 1/12 interest by adverse possession. The court first noted that the Robertsons and the Mauzeys were cotenants, and that, in the case of a cotenancy, "Missouri law presumes that tenants in common, who go into possession of realty, do not do so adversely" to other cotenants. The court held that this presumption of permissive occupancy by a cotenant can be rebutted. To rebut the presumption of permissive occupancy, however, the plaintiff "must show the actual knowledge of the real owner that he claims in opposition and defiance of his title, or he must show such an occupancy and use, so open and notorious and inconsistent with, as well as injurious to[,] the rights of the true owner that, from such facts, the law will authorize a presumption of such knowledge reposing in the true owner."

The circuit court concluded that the Robertsons had failed to satisfy this standard. The court found that "[t]here was no credible evidence presented of any kind that notice was ever given to David Mauzey or [the Mauzeys] by any one or more of [the Robertsons] or their predecessors in title that they intended to dispossess [the Mauzeys] of their interest in the [Property]." The judgment stated that, "[w]hile it is true that [the Robertsons] did everything in regards to the [Property] that a sole, responsible owner would do, they did nothing to bring their intention to dispossess [the Mauzeys] of their respective share until they served them with this litigation." In particular, the judgment found that "[t]here has been no evidence presented in this case of any recorded deeds that somehow dispossessed [the Mauzeys] of their respective interest."

The Robertsons appeal.

Discussion

The Robertsons raise four Points on appeal. In their first Point, the Robertsons argue that the trial court erred in finding that David Mauzey inherited a 1/12 interest in the Property by intestate succession on Leola Mauzey's death in 1933, because David Mauzey took no "affirmative action" to claim his spousal share. The Robertsons' final three Points argue that the trial court erred in finding that they failed to meet their burden to establish adverse possession. Because we conclude that the Robertsons established their claim for adverse possession, it is unnecessary for us to address their first Point.

In a court-tried case, this court will affirm the judgment of the trial court 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. Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). All evidence
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 books & journal articles
  • 6.2 Actual
    • United States
    • Real Estate Practice Deskbook Chapter 6 Adverse Possession and Prescription
    • Invalid date
    ...instead of 1/5 interests, mistakenly believing a 1/5 interest in a deceased cotenant had been extinguished. Robertson v. Mauzey, 518 S.W.3d 864, 870 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017). Some confusion exists in the reported cases as to the nature and degree of possessory activity required to be shown when......
  • 6.3 Hostile
    • United States
    • Real Estate Practice Deskbook Chapter 6 Adverse Possession and Prescription
    • Invalid date
    ...stronger evidence than as against a stranger to the title. Moore v. Hoffman, 39 S.W.2d 339, 343 (Mo. 1931). See Robertson v. Mauzey, 518 S.W.3d 864, 870 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017), in which evidence of color of title sufficed. Use that is permissible in its inception can ripen into adverse posses......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT