FACTS. The plaintiff, the Gurwitts, were bringing to the court the issue of who owned the disputed 17-acre tract of land. The Gurwits sought an action to have the title for the tract quieted in themselves, with the Gruenders as defendants. The Gurwits were using this land for cutting firewood, cleaning up the downed trees and brush along the road, planting plots of food for wildlife on the tract, and also posted "no trespassing" and "no hunting" signs along the road. The Gruenders actually had their name on the title of the land, so the Gruenders filed a counterclaim seeking to have the title quieted in themselves. The trial took place. The trial court found that the Gurwits had the title by adverse possession. The Gruenders appealed to the Court of Appeals of …show more content…
Here, the plaintiffs, the Gurwits, can argue for adverse possession of the disputed tract by showing they qualify for each and all five of the required elements. In this, the Gurwits met the requirement of hostility by showing their intent to possess the property by posting "no hunting" and "no trespassing" signs. They actually possessed the tract by using it for cutting firewood and purposes of the like. They had open and notorious possession, because passerbys, including the Gruenders themselves, were able to witness their cutting firewood and clearing brush along the roadside. They possessed the tract exclusively, and lastly, their possession was as continuous as the nature of the wooded property would allow. Even though the Gurwits were not physically present on the disputed tract every single day for 10 years, the element of continuous possession in Missouri does not require continuous occupancy and use.
HOLDING. The Missouri Court of Appeals holds that each element of adverse possession was proved by the Gurwits for their claim of the title of the disputed tract. The trial court did not err in finding the Gurwits had acquired by adverse possession, and the trial court’s judgment is