Baldwin v. Black

Missouri Court of Appeals

Baldwin v. Black

618 S.W.2d 730, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 2889

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 25, 1981

DocketNo. 11590

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 618 S.W.2d 730 (Baldwin v. Black) 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

Baldwin v. Black, 618 S.W.2d 730, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 2889 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PREWITT, Presiding Judge.

Count I of plaintiffs’ petition requested the court to quiet title in them to a 20 acre tract of land. If that was denied their second count requested compensation for improvements made to the land. Defendant Scott Meredith’s answer and counterclaim denied plaintiffs’ claims, contended that he held title to the land, and prayed that title be quieted in him. Following the trial the court entered a judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ petition, and Meredith voluntarily dismissed his counterclaim.

Plaintiffs contend that the court’s judgment was insufficient because it did not adjudicate title to the land as between the parties. We agree. Although the trial court may have believed that plaintiffs had not established title, their evidence put title in issue and precluded a general judgment of dismissal without determination of title. [731]*731Stottle v. Brittian, 459 S.W.2d 310, 312 (Mo.1970). In an action to quiet title the court is required to adjudicate the respective interests of the parties even though the plaintiff fails to establish his claim of title and even if the defendant does not request an adjudication of title. Id. 459 S.W.2d at 313; Pitts v. Pitts, 388 S.W.2d 337, 339 (Mo.1965); Hillman v. Hedgpeth, 600 S.W.2d 625, 628-629 (Mo.App.1980).

As the cause must be remanded, we believe that the interests of justice will be served by permitting the parties to present to the trial court such additional evidence as they may have which may bear upon their respective claims in order that the court may be fully informed in adjudicating the title between them. See Stottle v. Brittian, supra, 459 S.W.2d at 313; Pitts v. Pitts, supra, 388 S.W.2d at 341; Hillman v. Hedgpeth, supra, 600 S.W.2d at 629. See also Flowers v. Bales, 615 S.W.2d 103 (Mo.App.1981).

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

All concur.

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

PREWITT, Presiding Judge.

Count I of plaintiffs’ petition requested the court to quiet title in them to a 20 acre tract of land. If that was denied their second count requested compensation for improvements made to the land. Defendant Scott Meredith’s answer and counterclaim denied plaintiffs’ claims, contended that he held title to the land, and prayed that title be quieted in him. Following the trial the court entered a judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ petition, and Meredith voluntarily dismissed his counterclaim.

Plaintiffs contend that the court’s judgment was insufficient because it did not adjudicate title to the land as between the parties. We agree. Although the trial court may have believed that plaintiffs had not established title, their evidence put title in issue and precluded a general judgment of dismissal without determination of title. [731]*731Stottle v. Brittian, 459 S.W.2d 310, 312 (Mo.1970). In an action to quiet title the court is required to adjudicate the respective interests of the parties even though the plaintiff fails to establish his claim of title and even if the defendant does not request an adjudication of title. Id. 459 S.W.2d at 313; Pitts v. Pitts, 388 S.W.2d 337, 339 (Mo.1965); Hillman v. Hedgpeth, 600 S.W.2d 625, 628-629 (Mo.App.1980).

As the cause must be remanded, we believe that the interests of justice will be served by permitting the parties to present to the trial court such additional evidence as they may have which may bear upon their respective claims in order that the court may be fully informed in adjudicating the title between them. See Stottle v. Brittian, supra, 459 S.W.2d at 313; Pitts v. Pitts, supra, 388 S.W.2d at 341; Hillman v. Hedgpeth, supra, 600 S.W.2d at 629. See also Flowers v. Bales, 615 S.W.2d 103 (Mo.App.1981).

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

All concur.

DENNIS L. WALKER v. HALEIGH WALKER and BRADEN WALKER by their next friend, Peggie Lair, and THE UNKNOWN HEIRS OF BRADLEY M. WALKER, AND THEIR UNKNOWN HERIS, DEVISEES, GRANTEES, ASSIGNEES, DONEES, ALIENEES, LEGATEES, ADMINISTRATORS, EXECUTORS, GUARDIANS, MORTGAGEES, TRUSTEES AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS, CORPORATIONS OR SUCCESSORS CLAIMING, BY THROUGH AND UNDER THEM, Defendants-Respondents

485 S.W.3d 403 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2016)

State ex rel. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission v. London

824 S.W.2d 55 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1991)

STATE EX REL. HWY. COM'N v. London

824 S.W.2d 55 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1991)

First State Savings Bank v. Peters

797 S.W.2d 574 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1990)

Hall v. Allen

771 S.W.2d 50 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1989)

Sadler v. Home Savings of America

733 S.W.2d 856 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1987)

Calvert v. Latimer

670 S.W.2d 588 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1984)

McComas v. Umlauf

641 S.W.2d 809 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1982)

Roberts v. Harms

627 S.W.2d 924 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

618 S.W.2d 730, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 2889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baldwin-v-black-moctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack