Auxier v. Holmes

605 S.W.2d 804, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 2626
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedJuly 8, 1980
DocketWD 30728
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 605 S.W.2d 804 (Auxier v. Holmes) 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
Auxier v. Holmes, 605 S.W.2d 804, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 2626 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

MANFORD, Judge.

This is an action to quiet title and a counterclaim seeking to establish a prescriptive easement. Judgment quieted title in appellant. Judgment also established a prescriptive easement to the use of respondent. The judgment is affirmed.

This appeal is directed to that portion of the judgment establishing the prescriptive easement. Appellants allege two points of error, which in summary contend that the circuit court erred in finding the evidence supported respondents’ open and notorious use of the entire lane, and that the circuit court erred in finding the evidence supported respondents’ continuous use of the entire lane for the required statutory period of ten years.

Review of this judgment is limited by the rule in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo.banc 1976) requiring affirmance unless there is no substantial evidence to support the judgment, unless the judgment is against the weight of the evidence, unless the judgment erroneously declares the law or unless the judgment erroneously applies the law. Also, where the evidence consists of contradictory and conflicting testimony, this court defers to the trial court’s oppor *806 tunity and ability to view the witnesses and assess their credibility, see Spooner v. Bates, 550 S.W.2d 200 (Mo.App.1977) and George v. Dickinson, 504 S.W.2d 658 (Mo.App.1974).

Appellants are the owners of record of forty acres of land including the lane which became the area of dispute. The attached exhibits depict the disputed area and surrounding land interests of the parties.

*807

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

Related

Soderholm v. Nauman
409 S.W.3d 382 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2013)
McNulty v. Murray
93 S.W.3d 801 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2002)
Phillips v. Sommerer
917 S.W.2d 636 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1996)
Moss v. Ward
881 S.W.2d 238 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1994)
Gault v. Bahm
826 S.W.2d 875 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1992)
White v. Ruth R. Millington Living Trust
785 S.W.2d 782 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1990)
Johnston v. Bates
778 S.W.2d 357 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1989)
Neale v. Kottwitz
769 S.W.2d 474 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1989)
Parker v. Rogers
698 S.W.2d 617 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1985)
Brewer v. United States
562 F. Supp. 128 (E.D. Missouri, 1983)
Lacy v. Schmitz
639 S.W.2d 96 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1982)
Spence v. Wrobleski
603 S.W.2d 91 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
605 S.W.2d 804, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 2626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/auxier-v-holmes-moctapp-1980.