The And Co Tenant, Tenancy, And Treatment Of Co Tenancy Essay

1115 Words Mar 29th, 2016 null Page
In Missouri, there is a strong presumption against the hostile element of adverse possession in cases of co-tenancy. See Mann v. Mann, 353 Mo. 619, 622, 183 S.W.2d 557, 558 (1944). To overcome this presumption, the claimant must establish that he acted in a way that was irreconcilable with their co-tenant’s possessory interest. See Golden v. Tyler, 180 Mo. 196, 204 (1904). Though it is not necessary to show actual notice to the co-tenant, the claimant must demonstrate intent to solely possess the property. See Teson v. Vasquez, 561 S.W.2d 119, 127 (Mo.App. 1977). To make this assertion, the adverse possessor must do more than merely make improvements, pay taxes or use the land. See Russell v. Russell, 540 S.W.2d 626, 634 (Mo.App. 1976). That is because each co-tenant has the right to do such things, and her co-tenants this have no right to prevent her from doing them. Without meeting these requirements, claimant’s possession is not hostile and the adverse possession claim fails. During the phone call Sabrina made to Elmer in 1987, he informed her of the renovations and changes he planned to make. This demonstrated that Elmer felt obligated to get permission from Sabrina or, at minimum, inform her of these changes. Sabrina responded by authorizing Elmer to use the land as he pleased. His use of the farm was consistent with Sabrina’s ownership rights because she granted him permission to use the land as he wanted. The present case is analogous to Bass v. Rounds. 811…

Related Documents