## Facts

- Tommie and Ruth Crocker owned and lived on lots 7 and 8 in a platted subdivision in Camden County, Missouri.
- The Charltons owned the three adjoining lots—lots 9, 10, and 11—which were vacant and heavily covered with brush.
- In April 1971, the Crockers began clearing brush from lots 9–11 because the overgrowth created a fire risk to their nearby home area.
- Before starting, Mr. Crocker obtained the subdivision developer’s approval to do the clearing work.
- The Crockers continued clearing and maintaining the brush-covered lots for years after 1971, treating the area as part of the space associated with their residence.
- From 1971 to 1978, the Crockers kept a mobile home on lots 7 and 8; Mrs. Crocker testified they sold it because they could not build or add onto the back due to the location of the property line with lot 9.
- In April 1982, Mr. Crocker filed a mechanic’s lien against lots 9–11 seeking payment for the clearing work he had performed.
- The trial court found the Crockers had obtained title to lots 9–11 by adverse possession; the Charltons appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the Crockers’ use of lots 9–11 was actual, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous for Missouri’s ten-year adverse-possession period.
2. Whether the Crockers’ possession was hostile under a claim of right, given that Mr. Crocker initially obtained the subdivision developer’s approval to clear brush on the lots.
3. Whether the trial court’s judgment quieting title in the Crockers should be disturbed on appeal where the Charltons challenged individual adverse-possession elements.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that the Crockers possessed lots 9–11 in a manner consistent with ownership—visible, ongoing, and for the required statutory period.
- The court also upheld the trial court’s finding of hostility: the fact that the Crockers had obtained approval from the subdivision developer did not bar a finding that their possession was hostile to the Charltons’ record title.

## Legal Principles

- To acquire title by adverse possession in Missouri, the claimant must prove possession that is actual, hostile, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous for the statutory period (ten years).
- “Hostile” possession means possession under a claim of right that is inconsistent with the record owner’s title; it does not require ill will.
- Acts that count as “actual possession” depend on the nature and condition of the land; for unimproved lots, repeated clearing and maintenance can qualify when it shows control as an owner would exercise.
- Open and notorious possession requires conduct that would give reasonable notice to an owner that another is treating the land as his or her own.
- Appellate review of a court-tried adverse-possession case is limited; a trial court’s findings will be sustained when supported by substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

Charlton v. Crocker affirmed a quiet-title judgment for the neighboring lot owners because the trial court could reasonably find that, beginning in April 1971, the Crockers openly and continuously exercised owner-like control over the Charltons’ brush-covered lots for more than ten years and did so under a claim of right inconsistent with the Charltons’ record ownership, even though the Crockers initially sought approval from the subdivision developer to perform the clearing.


Charlton v. Crocker, 665 S.W.2d 56 (1984)