## Facts

- In 1963, Monte and Martha Gurwit bought a 76‑acre tract in Boone County, Missouri, from Orval and Mrs. Putnam.
- As the sale was pending, Putnam walked Monte Gurwit around the property and represented that Oak Grove School Road marked the south and east boundary; relying on that representation, the Gurwits believed their purchase included an additional 17‑acre tract lying inside the road’s curve.
- The Putnams did not have record title to the 17‑acre tract, and the deed description to the Gurwits did not include it; the tract was in the chain of title of neighboring owners (the Gruenders).
- The disputed 17 acres were rural and largely wooded/uncultivated, and the parties disputed whether the Gurwits’ conduct amounted to possession.
- From 1963 to 1983, the Gurwits treated the 17‑acre tract as their own in ways consistent with wooded farm property, including:
  - Posting “No Trespassing” and “No Hunting” signs on the tract.
  - Entering and traveling across the tract to access other parts of their farm.
  - Clearing brush and downed trees in and around the tract.
  - Cutting firewood and allowing friends to cut firewood on the tract.
- During that same period, the Gruenders at times notified the Gurwits about people trespassing on the tract, conduct the Gurwits relied on as consistent with the Gruenders’ awareness of the Gurwits’ control.
- In 1983, the Gurwits learned the Gruenders held record title to the 17 acres and that the tract had been included in the Gruenders’ property tax bill; after that, the Gurwits paid the taxes on the tract.
- The Gurwits filed suit to quiet title to the 17‑acre tract by adverse possession; the Gruenders counterclaimed to quiet title in themselves.
- After a bench trial, the circuit court entered judgment quieting title in the Gurwits based on ten years’ adverse possession under § 516.010, RSMo 1986.
- The Gruenders appealed. (An earlier appeal had been dismissed because the judgment was not final. Gurwit v. Kannatzer, 758 S.W.2d 486 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).)

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the Gurwits acquired the 17‑acre tract by adverse possession for at least ten years under § 516.010 by proving hostile, actual, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous possession.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the judgment quieting title in Monte and Martha Gurwit.
- The court held the record supported the trial court’s determination that the Gurwits’ use of the wooded tract satisfied the elements of adverse possession for the statutory ten‑year period.

## Legal Principles

- To acquire title by adverse possession in Missouri, the claimant must prove possession that is hostile (under claim of right), actual, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous for at least ten years. § 516.010, RSMo.
- “Hostile” possession refers to holding as an owner and inconsistent with the record owner’s rights; it does not require ill will and may exist even when the possessor’s claim began with a mistaken boundary.
- Whether possession is “actual” and “open and notorious” depends on the character of the land; for rural, wooded property, acts such as posting warning signs, clearing debris, using the land for access, cutting firewood, and controlling others’ entry may constitute owner‑type dominion.
- “Exclusive” possession may be shown by exercising control over access and uses of the tract, including granting or refusing permission to others and responding to trespass.
- “Continuous” possession does not require constant physical presence; it requires a pattern of use consistent with how an owner would use similar property throughout the statutory period.
- Payment of property taxes is not, by itself, an element of adverse possession, but it can support an inference that the claimant is asserting ownership.
- On appeal from a court‑tried case, the reviewing court evaluates whether the evidence supports the judgment and gives deference to the trial court’s resolution of disputed facts and credibility.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed quiet title in the Gurwits because the trial court could reasonably find that, for well over ten years, the Gurwits openly and exclusively exercised owner‑like control of the 17‑acre wooded tract—posting signs, entering and using it for access, clearing brush and fallen timber, and cutting (and authorizing others to cut) firewood—under a claim of right that was hostile to the record title, even though their belief in ownership began with a mistaken boundary representation.


Gurwit v. Kannatzer, 788 S.W.2d 293 (1990)