## Facts

- A grantor conveyed Lot 18 to Arch Madison, then later conveyed Lot 17 to W. Rucker Toalson and F. E. Toalson.
- In selling Lot 17, the grantor mistakenly identified a house at 221 Worley Street as being on Lot 17, but it was actually on Lot 18 (Madison’s lot).
- Believing they owned the improved parcel, the Toalsons caused tenants to vacate and, beginning in January 1955, made permanent improvements (e.g., added a room, bath and plumbing; installed gas; repaired roof and floors; painted and papered) costing about $900, plus paid labor.
- Madison knew he owned the property, observed the work in progress, and did not correct the Toalsons’ mistake or object while the improvements were being made.
- After the improvements, the Toalsons rented the property briefly, then learned Madison was the owner and voluntarily surrendered possession, stopped collecting rent, and sought compensation; Madison refused.

## Issues

1. Whether good-faith improvers who mistakenly improve another’s land may bring an independent equitable action to recover the value of the benefit conferred, even if they voluntarily surrendered possession and cannot proceed under the betterments statute.
2. Whether the betterments statute is the exclusive remedy barring equitable restitution outside the statute.
3. Whether the proper measure of recovery is the cost of improvements or the property’s enhanced value attributable to the improvements, and whether the evidence was sufficient.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the judgment for Madison and remanded.
- A good-faith improver may maintain an independent action in equity for restitution for improvements made under a mistake of ownership, including where possession was voluntarily surrendered.
- The betterments statute does not preempt or limit equitable relief; it provides a cumulative, not exclusive, remedy.
- The case was not tried on the correct measure of recovery, and the record lacked adequate proof of the property’s enhanced value due to the improvements; further proceedings were required.

## Legal Principles

- Equity may award restitution where a party, acting in good faith under a mistake of fact as to ownership, makes permanent improvements that benefit the true owner, particularly when the owner knows of the mistake and acquiesces.
- A statutory betterments remedy does not necessarily displace traditional equitable restitution for mistaken improvements.
- Restitution is ordinarily measured by the enhancement in value of the property caused by the improvements, not merely the improver’s expenditures.

## Conclusion

A landowner who knowingly allows good-faith mistaken improvements to proceed may be required in equity to pay for the benefit received; because recovery is typically limited to the increase in property value attributable to the improvements, the case was remanded for proof and application of that measure.


Toalson v. Madison, 307 S.W.2d 32 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957)