## Facts

- Jimmie M. Norman owned a farm adjacent to land owned by the Bunselmeyers.
- In 1974, Norman planned a new roadway and a new fence that would run diagonally across the record boundary between the two farms.
- The diagonal fence would enclose a triangular tract located at the corner of the Bunselmeyers’ property according to the deeds.
- Norman informed the Bunselmeyers of the proposed road-and-fence line; the Bunselmeyers agreed and paid one-half of the construction cost.
- The fence and road were completed in June 1974. Norman cleared the triangular tract and used it as part of his farm, including running cattle on it.
- Norman’s use of the triangular tract was open, continuous, and exclusive from 1974 until the fence was moved about ten years later.
- In October 1974, Charles and Rebecca Allison purchased the Bunselmeyers’ land, taking record title to the triangular tract.
- In 1984, after the boundary was identified, the Allisons moved the fence to the true boundary line, placing the triangular tract on their side of the fence.
- Norman filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that he had acquired title to the triangular tract by adverse possession (and, alternatively, rights related to the roadway).
- At trial, Norman described his conduct as “merely building a fence” and conceded he did not intend to claim property he did not own.

## Issues

1. Whether Norman proved possession “hostile” and “under a claim of right” for the statutory period when the fence-and-road arrangement began with the prior owner’s agreement and Norman testified he did not intend to claim land beyond his title.
2. Whether Norman could establish prescriptive rights in the roadway where the use originated by consent and was not shown to be adverse under a claim of right.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the judgment for Charles and Rebecca Allison.
- The court held there was substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that Norman’s possession was not hostile and not under a claim of right, defeating adverse possession.
- The court also rejected Norman’s alternative claim for prescriptive rights because the roadway use began permissively and was not shown to have become adverse under a claim of right.
- Applying the deferential standard of review, the court concluded the trial court’s judgment was supported by the evidence and reflected correct law.

## Legal Principles

- Adverse possession in Missouri requires possession that is actual, open, notorious, exclusive, continuous, and hostile under a claim of right for the statutory period.
- “Hostile” possession requires an intent to possess as owner, not in recognition of or subordination to the record owner’s title.
- Occupation based on a boundary mistake or convenience, without an intent to claim beyond the true line, is not hostile under a claim of right.
- A claimant’s own testimony disclaiming an intent to take another’s land can constitute substantial evidence negating hostility/claim of right.
- A prescriptive easement (or other prescriptive right) likewise requires open and continuous use that is adverse and under a claim of right; use that begins by consent is presumed permissive unless the claimant proves a later change to an adverse claim.
- On appeal, factual findings—such as whether use was under a claim of right—are upheld if supported by substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

Because the fence-and-road line was created with the prior owner’s agreement and shared expense, and because Norman testified he was not trying to claim land he did not own, the trial court could find the possession and use were not hostile under a claim of right; the appellate court therefore affirmed denial of adverse possession and any claimed prescriptive rights.


Norman v. Allison, 775 S.W.2d 568 (1989)