Albert v. DeClue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Albert v. DeClue

526 S.W.2d 39, 1975 Mo. App. LEXIS 1737

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 17, 1975

Docket35548

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 526 S.W.2d 39 (Albert v. DeClue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albert v. DeClue, 526 S.W.2d 39, 1975 Mo. App. LEXIS 1737 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

*40 STEWART, Judge.

Defendants appeal from the judgment in this court tried case in which the court quieted title to a triangular piece of land in plaintiff and further found that defendants had not carried the burden of proving that they had obtained title to that land by adverse possession.

Plaintiff is the record owner of a 40 acre tract of land in Washington County which adjoins a 40 acre tract owned by defendants. Defendants’ property lies to the south of that of plaintiff. Defendants sought to establish title to a triangular tract to the north of the common record boundary line of the parties. 1 The portion of plaintiff’s property claimed by defendants was fenced with barbed wire primarily set in trees. While fencing is one of the strongest indications of adverse possession the primary issue here was whether the defendants had held adversely for the necessary prescriptive time. The evidence on this point was conflicting, we must therefore give great deference to the finding of the trial court who was in better position to judge the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence. Marshall v. Marshall, 484 S.W.2d 208 (Mo.1972). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the findings and conclusions of the trial court are not clearly erroneous; no errors of law appear. A full opinion would have no precedential value we thus affirm in accord with Rule 84.16(b), Y.A.M.R.

CLEMENS, P. J. and KELLY, J., concur.

1

. It would serve no useful purpose to recite the lengthy legal description in this opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*40 STEWART, Judge.

Defendants appeal from the judgment in this court tried case in which the court quieted title to a triangular piece of land in plaintiff and further found that defendants had not carried the burden of proving that they had obtained title to that land by adverse possession.

Plaintiff is the record owner of a 40 acre tract of land in Washington County which adjoins a 40 acre tract owned by defendants. Defendants’ property lies to the south of that of plaintiff. Defendants sought to establish title to a triangular tract to the north of the common record boundary line of the parties. 1 The portion of plaintiff’s property claimed by defendants was fenced with barbed wire primarily set in trees. While fencing is one of the strongest indications of adverse possession the primary issue here was whether the defendants had held adversely for the necessary prescriptive time. The evidence on this point was conflicting, we must therefore give great deference to the finding of the trial court who was in better position to judge the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence. Marshall v. Marshall, 484 S.W.2d 208 (Mo.1972). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the findings and conclusions of the trial court are not clearly erroneous; no errors of law appear. A full opinion would have no precedential value we thus affirm in accord with Rule 84.16(b), Y.A.M.R.

CLEMENS, P. J. and KELLY, J., concur.

1

. It would serve no useful purpose to recite the lengthy legal description in this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

526 S.W.2d 39, 1975 Mo. App. LEXIS 1737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-v-declue-moctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack