Wills v. Meador

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wills v. Meador

638 S.W.2d 297, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3161

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 17, 1982

Docket12417

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 638 S.W.2d 297 (Wills v. Meador) 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

Wills v. Meador, 638 S.W.2d 297, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3161 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PREWITT, Judge.

At dispute is the boundary line between land owned by plaintiffs and defendants. Following trial and entry of a judgment, a new trial was granted. Thereafter, the judge who tried the case was disqualified and the cause reassigned. On July 2, 1980, the successor judge ordered a survey to be made of the disputed area. Pursuant to that order survey plats were filed on October 17, 1980.

On January 8,1981, the case was assigned to the Honorable Frank G. Mack and submitted to him on the basis of a transcript of the testimony heard at the initial trial. On July 14,1981, judgment was entered declaring “that the boundary line between the Wills farm and Meador farm shall be and is hereby determined to be the section line between Section 18 and 19" shown on the survey ordered by the court. Defendants appealed.

Defendants contend that the court erred in determining that the property line was to be the section line shown on the survey because the survey was not prepared in a manner entitling it to be used by the court and defendants were not given an opportunity to examine the surveyor. The trial court’s authority to direct a survey was not disputed but after the survey plats were filed defendants questioned the survey and requested an opportunity to challenge it.

Where the evidence leaves a description of property uncertain, trial courts have the power to direct a survey to determine the facts necessary for a proper judgment and to tax the expense of the survey as cost. State ex rel. County of Shannon v. Chilton, 626 S.W.2d 426, 429-430 (Mo.App.1981); Allen v. Smith, 375 S.W.2d 874, 883 (Mo.App.1964). See also 11 C.J.S. Boundaries § 121, p. 736. However, a judgment cannot be based on an improper survey. Probst v. Probst, 595 S.W.2d 289, 291 (Mo.App.1979). See also Roberts v. Harms, 627 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Mo.App.1982); Cornelius v. Tubbesing, 593 S.W.2d 609, 610 (Mo.App.1980); Wells v. Elder, 544 S.W.2d 258, 259 (Mo.App.1976).

Defendants should have received an opportunity to challenge the survey. The parties are entitled to question a surveyor appointed by the court in the same manner as any expert called as a court witness. United States v. Cline, 388 F.2d 294, 296 (4th Cir. 1968). See also In re S_ M_ W _, 485 S.W.2d 158, 162-164 (Mo.App.1972); H_ B _ v. R_ B_, 449 S.W.2d 890, 893 (Mo.App.1970).

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for a hearing to determine if the survey was properly made and if so, the court may reenter the present judgment, or if not, *299 may order additions or corrections to the survey or a new survey if necessary, and may thereafter enter judgment.

GREENE, C.J., BILLINGS, P.J., and FLANIGAN and MAUS, JJ., concur.

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

PREWITT, Judge.

At dispute is the boundary line between land owned by plaintiffs and defendants. Following trial and entry of a judgment, a new trial was granted. Thereafter, the judge who tried the case was disqualified and the cause reassigned. On July 2, 1980, the successor judge ordered a survey to be made of the disputed area. Pursuant to that order survey plats were filed on October 17, 1980.

On January 8,1981, the case was assigned to the Honorable Frank G. Mack and submitted to him on the basis of a transcript of the testimony heard at the initial trial. On July 14,1981, judgment was entered declaring “that the boundary line between the Wills farm and Meador farm shall be and is hereby determined to be the section line between Section 18 and 19" shown on the survey ordered by the court. Defendants appealed.

Defendants contend that the court erred in determining that the property line was to be the section line shown on the survey because the survey was not prepared in a manner entitling it to be used by the court and defendants were not given an opportunity to examine the surveyor. The trial court’s authority to direct a survey was not disputed but after the survey plats were filed defendants questioned the survey and requested an opportunity to challenge it.

Where the evidence leaves a description of property uncertain, trial courts have the power to direct a survey to determine the facts necessary for a proper judgment and to tax the expense of the survey as cost. State ex rel. County of Shannon v. Chilton, 626 S.W.2d 426, 429-430 (Mo.App.1981); Allen v. Smith, 375 S.W.2d 874, 883 (Mo.App.1964). See also 11 C.J.S. Boundaries § 121, p. 736. However, a judgment cannot be based on an improper survey. Probst v. Probst, 595 S.W.2d 289, 291 (Mo.App.1979). See also Roberts v. Harms, 627 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Mo.App.1982); Cornelius v. Tubbesing, 593 S.W.2d 609, 610 (Mo.App.1980); Wells v. Elder, 544 S.W.2d 258, 259 (Mo.App.1976).

Defendants should have received an opportunity to challenge the survey. The parties are entitled to question a surveyor appointed by the court in the same manner as any expert called as a court witness. United States v. Cline, 388 F.2d 294, 296 (4th Cir. 1968). See also In re S_ M_ W _, 485 S.W.2d 158, 162-164 (Mo.App.1972); H_ B _ v. R_ B_, 449 S.W.2d 890, 893 (Mo.App.1970).

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for a hearing to determine if the survey was properly made and if so, the court may reenter the present judgment, or if not, *299 may order additions or corrections to the survey or a new survey if necessary, and may thereafter enter judgment.

GREENE, C.J., BILLINGS, P.J., and FLANIGAN and MAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

638 S.W.2d 297, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wills-v-meador-moctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack