## Facts

- In 1950, Leo and Velma Vasquez received record title by deed to river-bottom land in St. Louis County, Missouri, lying between Aubuchon Road and the Missouri River.
- In 1969, Lawrence Teson filed an action to quiet title to portions of the Vasquezes’ tract, claiming he had cleared and farmed the disputed land.
- In 1972, Teson formally asserted title by adverse possession, and Sommers, Keeven, and Behle were added as plaintiffs, each claiming adjoining portions of the same general river-bottom area.
- Teson claimed he exercised dominion over two areas: land between Cowmire Creek and Round Pond and additional property nearer the Missouri River, based on years of clearing and cultivation.
- Sommers claimed a separate tract that had been conveyed to him by a 1952 deed; he asserted possession through his own use and by arranging for a seminary to use a portion of the land.
- Keeven and Behle claimed title to another tract conveyed to them by a 1963 deed from the Hagens and relied on their continued use and control of that tract.
- After a bench trial, the circuit court quieted title in Teson, Sommers, and Keeven and Behle to the specific tracts described in the judgment, finding each had acquired title by adverse possession.
- The Vasquezes appealed, challenging whether the evidence established adverse possession and, for any claimant lacking color of title, whether the judgment awarded more land than was actually possessed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence showed, for each claimant, actual, open and notorious, hostile (under claim of right), exclusive, and continuous possession for the full ten-year statutory period required to acquire title by adverse possession.
2. Whether a claimant without color of title proved physical possession of the entire area awarded, rather than only partial use or an asserted boundary without acts showing control over the whole tract.
3. Whether the claimants’ activities on river-bottom land—such as clearing, farming, and allowing third-party use—were sufficient to prove “actual possession” and exclusivity against the record owners.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments quieting title in favor of Teson, Sommers, and Keeven and Behle.
- The court held that the trial court could reasonably find each claimant proved the elements of adverse possession for the required ten-year period based on the pattern of use and control shown at trial.
- The court reiterated that where a claimant lacks color of title, the claim succeeds only to the land shown by evidence to have been physically possessed, and it accepted the trial court’s tract findings as supported by the record.

## Legal Principles

- A party claiming title by adverse possession must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, for the entire statutory period, each element: actual, hostile (under claim of right), open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous possession for ten years. § 516.010 RSMo.
- Failure to prove any single element defeats the claim.
- “Actual possession” focuses on (1) the claimant’s present ability to control the land and (2) the intent to exclude others from that control.
- When a claimant occupies land without color of title, the claimant must prove physical possession of the entire area claimed; a boundary asserted only in the claimant’s mind is not enough.
- Acts such as occupying, clearing, cultivating, pasturing, erecting fences or improvements, and paying taxes may be used as evidence of actual possession; no single act is conclusive, and the total course of conduct controls.
- Adverse possession operates against the record owner’s title; once the statutory period runs with all elements met, the possessor is vested with title and the record owner is divested.

## Conclusion

Teson v. Vasquez affirmed quiet-title judgments for multiple plaintiffs who proved, through years of clearing, farming, and other ownership-like control of river-bottom tracts, that their possession was actual, open, hostile under a claim of right, exclusive, and continuous for Missouri’s ten-year period, with any award limited to the land the evidence showed was physically possessed when color of title was absent.


Teson v. Vasquez, 561 S.W.2d 119 (1977)