The Empire Dist. Electric Co. v. Coverdell
| Decision Date | 03 June 2011 |
| Docket Number | SD 30557.,Nos. SD 30560,s. SD 30560 |
| Citation | 344 S.W.3d 842 |
| Parties | THE EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellant,v.Douglas L. COVERDELL and Coverdell Enterprises, Inc., Respondents,andCity of Branson, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Denied June 28, 2011.
Application for Transfer
Denied Aug. 30, 2011.
Mark A. Fletcher, Springfield, for Empire Elec. Dist. Co.James E. Meadows and Jennifer R. Growcock, Springfield, for City of Branson.
Robert W. Cockerham, Christopher J. Seibold, Samuel John Vincent, III, St. Louis, MO, James H. Arneson, Springfield, MO, for Douglas L. Coverdell and Coverdell Enterprises, Inc.Before BARNEY, P.J., LYNCH, J., and BURRELL, J.PER CURIAM.
The Empire District Electric Company (“Empire”) and the City of Branson, Missouri (“Branson”), separately appeal from the trial court's “Judgment” entered on January 14, 2010 (“the 2010 Judgment”), arising out of a quiet title action. The 2010 judgment found that Douglas L. Coverdell (“Mr. Coverdell”) and Coverdell Enterprises, Inc. (“Coverdell Enterprises”) (collectively “Respondents”) were the fee simple owners of certain properties located on a peninsula bounded by Roark Creek and Lake Taneycomo in Branson, Missouri, and certain other property apparently located on an adjacent tract to the south of the peninsula. The 2010 Judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded as to both Branson and Empire.1
The genesis of this litigation arose on July 18, 2003, when Empire, successor in interest to Ozark Power and Water Company (“Ozark Power”), filed a “Petition to Quiet Title” against Branson; The Branson Paper, Inc.; Mr. Coverdell and his wife, Julia A. Coverdell (“Mrs. Coverdell”); Coverdell Enterprises; B'Cuz, Inc.; Keycom International, Inc.; Henry Griffin (“Attorney Griffin”); Peter Rea (“Mr. Rea”); and Darlene Rea (“Mrs. Rea”). In this petition, Empire alleged, inter alia, that it was the fee owner of a piece of property containing 3.36 acres it described as that land conveyed by Annie I. Compton along with other heirs of the estate of Henry H. Compton to its predecessor in interest, Ozark Power, in 1913 (“the Compton Deed”). As best we discern from the record, this piece of property largely consisted of the eastern portion of the peninsula at issue as well as a section of the western portion of the peninsula, designated as “Property 1” in Empire's petition.2 Empire also alleged it was the fee owner of a second piece of property referred to in the petition as “Property 2,” which was conveyed to Ozark Power on May 14, 1913, by The Branson Town Company.3 Further, Empire alleged that on April 14, 1927, Ozark Power, “as owner of Property l and Property 2, conveyed such properties and others ...” to Empire such that Empire “is the owner in fee simple of Property 1 ... and Property 2.”
Empire's petition then set out that the defendants named in its petition “may claim some interest in and to Property 1 and/or Property 2, which claim is adverse, prejudicial and junior to that of [Empire], but which represents an improper and invalid cloud on [Empire's] title.” Empire then recited the respective legal descriptions and chains of title to properties it described as “Property 3,” “Property 4,” “Property 5” and “Property 6.” Empire contended that the legal descriptions and title holders of the aforementioned properties infringed on Empire's unfettered fee simple title to its legally owned Property l and Property 2. Empire then prayed, inter alia, that the trial court “quiet fee simple title of Property 1 and Property 2 in and to [Empire] ... and forever bar [the named defendants], their successors or assigns, or anyone on their behalf, from any right, title or interest in Property 1 and Property 2....”
On June 10, 2004, Respondents filed an “Answer and Counterclaim” in which they asserted they had fee simple ownership “to all the ... property described in [Empire's] Petition” as well as all the property set out in their attached “Exhibit A,” which as best we discern set out the legal description for the eastern portion of the peninsula.4 They also asserted title to the aforementioned property by way of adverse possession.
In July of 2004, Branson filed both an Answer and a Third Party Petition naming as defendants all the original parties named in Empire's Petition, including Empire and Respondents together with Joseph Chenworth, Lillian E. Compton, Karen Rea and “anyone else having or claiming any interest in the real estate.” It asserted ownership of “all properties described in [Empire's] Petition” based on legal title as well as adverse possession.
The properties at issue were the subject of various deeds and appear to have once been part of the same tract of land. As best we discern, the chain of title relied on by Empire consisted of the 1913 Compton to Ozark Power deed which, according to Empire, conveyed the entire peninsula to Ozark Power; 5 the May 14, 1913, deed from The Branson Town Company to Ozark Power; and an April 14, 1927, warranty deed from Ozark Power to Empire. 6 Also, as best we discern, the chain of title relied upon by Respondents started with a July 14, 1917, conveyance of the peninsula by the Comptons to W.H. Malone. The property was then conveyed by mesne conveyances to Ralph McBride, who on February 15, 1957, made a conveyance to W.F. Hoke and Vera Hoke (“the Hokes”).7 The Hokes then divided the peninsula into uneven western and eastern sections.
On April 20, 1972, the Hokes conveyed the following property, referred to in Empire's petition as “Property 4,” to Henry J. and Marjorie A. Cordes by “GENERAL WARRANTY DEED:”
[a] tract of land being a part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and a part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 23 North, Range 21 West, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NE corner of Park Addition to [Branson] thence North 2 [degrees] 19 [minutes] West to the Southerly Bank of Roark Creek; thence in a Southerly direction with the Easterly and Southerly bank of said Roark Creek to the Northerly line of said Park Addition; thence Easterly to the point of beginning all bearings being referenced to the centerline of Sycamore Street as being due North and South....
In turn, this property was ultimately conveyed to Branson.
The remainder of the Hokes property was conveyed by the Hokes via “QUIT CLAIM DEED” to Tori, Inc., an entity in which Mr. and Mrs. Rea held an interest. The description of this property conveyed by the Hokes to Tori, Inc. is referred to in Empire's petition as “Property 5” and set out as follows:
[a]ll that part of the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 situate[d] on the right bank of Roark Creek and that part of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 in Section 33, Township 23, Range 21, EXCEPT a tract of land more particularly described as beginning at the NE corner of Park Addition to [Branson], thence North 2 [degrees] 19 [minutes] West to the Southerly bank of Roark Creek; thence in a Southerly direction with the Easterly and Southerly bank of said Roark Creek to the Northerly line of said Park Addition; thence Easterly to the point of beginning; all bearings being referenced to the centerline of Sycamore Street as being due North and South.[ 8]
Tori, Inc., then executed a “GENERAL WARRANTY DEED” in favor of Mr. Coverdell on September 2, 1999, which recited the legal description in the Hokes quitclaim deed and stated the warranty deed was “subject, to the rise and fall of Lake Taneycomo and the rights of [Empire] in and to the said lands.” 9 Mr. and Mrs. Coverdell then conveyed a portion of this property to Coverdell Enterprises on June 12, 2001, with a “QUIT CLAIM DEED.” 10
On November 22, 2004, Branson filed a “Motion for Severance” in which it sought to sever all the issues relating to the western half of the peninsula, which it contended it owned through the conveyance made by the Hokes to the Cordeses. The trial court granted the motion and a bench trial was held “as to the western portion” of the peninsula in November of 2004. Following a bench trial, on December 20, 2004, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Branson (“the 2004 Judgment”).11 The 2004 Judgment determined Branson “is the owner, in fee simple absolute ... free and clear of any claims or encumbrances” of the following described property:
[a] tract of land being a part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and a part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 23 North, Range 21 West, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Park Addition to [Branson]; thence North 2 [degrees] 19 [minutes] West to the southerly bank of Roark Creek; thence in a southerly direction with the easterly and southerly bank of said Roark Creek to the northerly line of said Park Addition; thence easterly to the Point of Beginning, all bearings being referenced to the centerline of Sycamore Street as being due North and South.The trial court also determined “no other party has any claim of right, title or interest in or to said property....” As part of the 2004 Judgment, the trial court specifically set out that “upon oral motion of the parties, [the trial court] continues the trial of the remaining issues in the case, dealing with the eastern portion of the property alleged in [Empire's] Petition, for setting at a future date ....” (Emphasis added.) The trial court also noted “there is no just cause for delay in entry of this Judgment and Decree, and it is therefore decreed ... final for purposes of appeal.” No appeal was taken from the 2004 Judgment. Branson did not remain an active participant in the proceedings leading up to the 2010 Judgment, although it appeared to technically remain a party in the proceedings. Further, Branson did not receive notices and motions made by the parties remaining in the litigation.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Empire Dist. Elec. Co. v. Coverdell
...a 2010 judgment quieting title to land in Appellants ("the 2010 judgment"), and we remanded the case. Empire Dist. Elec. Co. v. Coverdell, 344 S.W.3d 842, 844 (Mo.App.S.D.2011)(Empire I ). Our general remand in that opinion expressly permitted a defendant, the City of Branson ("Branson") "t......
-
Empire Dist. Elec. Co. v. Coverdell
...Procedural BackgroundThis is the third time the underlying dispute has been before us on appeal. See Empire Dist. Elec. Co. v. Coverdell , 344 S.W.3d 842, 844 (Mo. App. 2011) ( Empire I ); Empire Dist. Elec. Co. v. Coverdell , 484 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Mo. App. 2015) ( Empire II ). By way of overvie......
-
Pierson v. Kirkpatrick
...constituted judicial admissions which would be conclusive upon the party making them, see The Empire Dist. Elec. Co. v. Coverdell, 344 S.W.3d 842, 852 (Mo.App.2011), a more accurate description of what transpired is that in its opening remarks Appellant engaged in invited error. Appellant's......
-
Hallquist v. United Home Loans, Inc.
...in the title of the other party." Ollison v. Vill. of Climax Springs, 916 S.W.2d 198, 203 (Mo. 1996); Empire Dist. Elec. Co. v. Coverdell, 344 S.W.3d 842, 852-53 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). Thus, to succeed on their quiet title claim, the Hallquists must prove their own title and establish the inv......
-
Admissions
...To the extent the trial court ignored this judicial admission, the trial court erred. Empire District Electric Company v. Coverdell , 344 S.W.3d 842 (Mo. App. 2011). Collecting Missouri cases considering judicial admissions. In re Marriage of Laurie F. Cavas , 270 P.3d 48 (Mont. 2012). Stip......
-
Hearsay
...To the extent the trial court ignored this judicial admission, the trial court erred. Empire District Electric Company v. Coverdell , 344 S.W.3d 842 (Mo. App. 2011). Collecting Missouri cases considering judicial admissions. In re Marriage of Laurie F. Cavas , 270 P.3d 48 (Mont. 2012). Stip......
-
Hearsay
...To the extent the trial court ignored this judicial admission, the trial court erred. Empire District Electric Company v. Coverdell , 344 S.W.3d 842 (Mo. App. 2011). Collecting Missouri cases considering judicial admissions. In re Marriage of Laurie F. Cavas , 270 P.3d 48 (Mont. 2012). Stip......
-
Hearsay
...ignored this judicial admission, the trial court erred. HEARSAY 6-79 ADMISSIONS §635 Empire District Electric Company v. Coverdell , 344 S.W.3d 842 (Mo. App. 2011). Collecting Missouri cases considering judicial admissions. In re Marriage of Laurie F. Cavas , 270 P.3d 48 (Mont. 2012). Stipu......