## Facts

- In 1936, a half-acre tract was deeded to a local Pentecostal assembly and its trustees and successors for use as a church site.
- Soon after construction of the first church building in the late 1930s, church members erected a wire fence along a tree line east of the building, mistakenly treating the tree line as the property boundary.
- The legal boundary under the 1936 deed lay west of the tree line, leaving a 0.14-acre strip between the deed line and the tree line.
- For decades, the church used the strip as part of the church premises, treating it as church property.
- In 1989, Oscar Casinger acquired the neighboring property and held record title to the 0.14-acre strip.
- In 1995, Casinger showed the church’s pastor a survey indicating the boundary and suggested the church consult counsel; the church took no action, and Casinger did not interfere with the church’s continued use.
- In 1996, the church built a new church building and parking lot, with a portion extending onto the disputed strip.
- The church incorporated in 2003 as Fairdealing Apostolic Church, Inc., continuing the same use and occupancy of the premises.
- In 2009, after obtaining its own survey, the church filed a quiet title action claiming the 0.14-acre strip by adverse possession; the trial court entered judgment for the church, and Casinger appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the church acquired the 0.14-acre strip by adverse possession (hostile, actual, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous possession for at least ten years), including whether possession could be tacked across the church’s change from unincorporated association to corporation.
2. Whether the quiet title judgment was defective for failure to join alleged necessary parties, including heirs or successors of trustees referenced in the 1936 deed.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment quieting title to the 0.14-acre strip in the church.
- The court held there was substantial evidence supporting each element of adverse possession, including hostility notwithstanding a mistaken boundary belief.
- The court held the church could tack its pre-incorporation possession to the corporation’s possession to satisfy the statutory period.
- The court rejected the joinder challenge, concluding the dispute concerned competing claims only between the church and Casinger and did not require adding remote or non-claiming parties.

## Legal Principles

- A claimant must prove adverse possession by showing possession that is hostile, actual, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous for at least ten years.
- Hostility may be shown by use under a claim of right even when the claimant’s belief about the true boundary is mistaken, so long as the possession is not permissive or subordinate to the record owner.
- Visible, long-term physical occupation and improvement (including fences, buildings, and parking use) may establish actual, open and notorious, and exclusive possession sufficient to put a reasonable owner on notice of an adverse claim.
- Possession periods may be tacked between predecessors and successors when there is continuity of possession; a change from unincorporated religious association to successor corporation does not, by itself, interrupt continuity where the same congregation continues the same occupation.
- In a quiet title action, parties are necessary when required to resolve competing claims actually asserted in the controversy; persons with no asserted adverse claim to the disputed parcel need not be joined merely because they are referenced in historical title documents.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed quiet title in the church because the evidence supported adverse possession of the disputed strip for well over the statutory period, including hostility despite a mistaken boundary and continuity through tacking across incorporation, and because the action could be resolved between the church and the record-title neighbor without joining remote heirs or other non-claiming parties.


Fairdealing Apostolic Church, Inc. v. Casinger, 353 S.W.3d 396 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011)