Pentecost v. Webster

674 S.W.3d 195

Vena Sue PENTECOST, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v. Michael WEBSTER, Defendant-Appellant,andRichard L. Pentecost, et al., Defendants.

No. SD 37447

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, In Division.

Filed: July 25, 2023

Attorney for Appellant – Kari A. Schulte of Jefferson City, MO.

Attorney for Respondent – Curtis M. Garner of Springfield, MO.

JENNIFER R. GROWCOCK, J.

Michael Webster ("Michael") appeals from a judgment: (1) quieting title to a Camden County property known as DeBerry¹ Farm in Vena Sue Pentecost ("Vena"); (2) denying Michael's claim that he secured title to DeBerry Farm by adverse possession after his father, Charles Webster ("Charles"), purported to convey DeBerry Farm to Michael in 1992; and (3) denying Michael's crossclaims against Vena's son, Richard L. Pentecost ("Richard"), and third-party petition claims against Michael's sister, Beth Miller ("Beth"), and her husband, and the unknown heirs and assigns of Charles and his former wife, Carol Webster ("Carol").² Michael raises nine points relied on. We reject them all and affirm the trial court's judgment.

Factual Background and Procedural History³

Charles and Carol acquired DeBerry Farm via a sheriff's partition deed on November 27, 1973. DeBerry Farm is an approximately 250-acre property of agricultural land primarily used for cattle. It has no home or similar structure on the property. Carol and Charles were married when they acquired the property and owned it as a tenancy by the entirety.

Carol filed for divorce from Charles in 1989, and the dissolution of marriage was granted on August 8, 1993. The 1993 judgment dissolving Charles and Carol's marriage incorporated their settlement and separation agreement, which awarded DeBerry Farm to Charles. However, in 1992 while still in the middle of divorce proceedings, Charles signed a quitclaim deed purporting to transfer DeBerry Farm to Michael. Missing from the 1992 quitclaim deed from Charles to Michael is Carol's signature. Michael did not intervene in his parents’ divorce proceedings to protect his claimed interest in DeBerry Farm.

Charles maintained a romantic relationship with Vena for 20 to 25 years until his death on July 24, 2007, but the two never married. Charles never told Vena that he purported to deed DeBerry Farm to Michael, and she believed Charles owned DeBerry Farm at the time of his divorce. While Charles was not able to "really work" DeBerry Farm, Vena and he would both check on the property, and Michael "helped" Charles with his "farming needs." Richard also worked for Charles since he was 12 years old. Richard's work included putting up a fence on the back side of DeBerry Farm and regularly checking the property with Charles.

Michael used DeBerry Farm after 1992 to cut hay, "hunt, work, fix fence, clear brush, pick mushrooms, pick blackberries, deer hunt[ ], ride the four wheeler around, [and] whatever [Michael] wanted to do[,]" but Charles always paid the property taxes for DeBerry Farm at the end of the year. At no point from 1992 until 2019 did Michael file any deed claiming ownership over DeBerry Farm.

Within a year after Charles's passing, Michael threatened violence to keep people off DeBerry Farm, and he "placed chains and locked gates" at the property. Michael "would show up and argue with folks wanting to rent the farm to run them off" and "ran off" Richard's brother-in-law, who was hunting. However, Michael never personally told Vena or Richard "to stay off" DeBerry Farm, and he and Richard never had "a conflict or an argument about [Richard] being on the farm[.]"

Richard continued to visit DeBerry Farm at least once every year after Charles's death in 2007, including taking a trip to hunt, and has tried to rent out the property. He would "usually" tell Vena before he was going to do "something at the farm." This included "normal maintenance and care of the land," removing trees from the road to cut a pathway for his truck to reach the entrance to DeBerry Farm, and "put[ting] fence up" by the existing gates for Michael's access. Michael tore that fence down within a week after installation, and he also removed the "no trespassing" signs Richard had put up at the same entrance. Michael put up his own "no trespassing" signs but only at the entrances to his property off T Highway and not on the parcels included in DeBerry Farm.

Vena filed an application to probate Charles's handwritten will (the "Will"), dated September 24, 2004, in the Camden County Court on November 21, 2007. Charles's Will provided:

2. To my son Michael Webster

To my daughter Elizabeth Miller

To my daughter Chesley Gregory

I leave one dollar $1.00 in United States currency. If any one or all of them contest any part of this Will the $1.00 is to go to charity of diabetes or heart.

3. All other property is to go to Vena Sue Pentecost upon my death. This includes any land, money, vehicles or anything of value either real or personal with no exceptions unless agreed upon by her.

4. When Vena Sue Pentecost has no further use for worldly goods on this earth[,] I request that if any part of my estate is left (Charles Edward Webster estate) it shall be divided equally between the 7 people (seven) listed below and no others.

The Will then listed two of Vena's grandchildren and five of Charles's grandchildren. In accordance with the Will, the probate court appointed Vena and Richard as co-personal representatives of the estate.

Though Michael was a listed heir, he did not hire an attorney or file any claims against Charles's estate as probate proceedings continued. Richard and Michael discussed the ownership of DeBerry Farm while they were going through probate and that "the farm was coming to [Vena]." According to Richard, they also discussed the prospect of Michael continuing to remove hay after Charles's passing, and Michael "agreed to pay for [Vena's] half of it and it would go to the estate." They "agreed that [Michael] could use the farm from then on" so long as Vena "would receive half the hay, and that would pay the taxes."

Vena and Richard's July 2008 inventory and March 2010 first amended inventory filed with the probate court each listed DeBerry Farm as included in Charles's estate. Vena and Richard swore by affidavit that the inventories were "a full inventory ... of all the real and personal property of the decedent[.]"⁴ Vena and Richard also filed a notice of their proposed final settlement and distribution of Charles's estate on February 16, 2010. The notice by publication informed all interested individuals that the final settlement and petition for distribution would determine "who are the successors in interest to the personal property of [Charles] and of the extent and character of their interest therein and for distribution of such property[.]" The final settlement noted Charles's estate had $120,000 in real estate, $100,000 of which was attributable to DeBerry Farm.

The probate court approved the final settlement and petition for order of distribution of Charles's assets on April 6, 2010. The final settlement distributed the property to Michael, Vena, and two of Charles's daughters as follows:

DISTRIBUTEE	RELATIONSHIP OR ART. OF WILL	INTEREST	PERSONAL PROPERTY TO WHICH ENTITLED
Michael Webster	Son	$ 1.00
Elizabeth Miller	Daughter	1.00
Chesley Gregory	Daughter	1.00
Vena Sue Pentecost	Friend	All other property of the Estate and the following
described vehicles:

1985 Ford Diesel Pickup Vin#1FDJF3719FKB15028	$ 500.00
1976 Dodge Dually Pickup Vin#D27BJ6SS311447	500.00
1975 KW Tractor Vin#1449328	1,000.00
1974 International Truck Vin#259471G35321	1,000.00
1958 Studebaker-vehicle located on Chesley's property	250.00
*no title information available
1978 Freightliner Vin#CA213151849	1,000.00

The Court further finds that the decedent owned the following real property at the time of his death, to wit:

[DeBerry Farm and a legal description with a value of $100,000.]

The probate court's order approving the settlement also listed the real properties that it found "the decedent [Charles] owned . at the time of his death[.]" The first listed property was DeBerry Farm. The order further stated in closing:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the Court that all other real and personal property owned by Decedent at that [sic] time of death, subject to any lawful disposition thereof heretofore made, be and the same are hereby assigned, transferred and distributed to and the title thereto vested in the aforesaid heirs at law in the respective proportionate interests as above set forth.

Following the April 6, 2010 order, Vena and Richard executed a co-personal representatives’ deed to transfer a "partial description" of DeBerry Farm to Vena. They later filed a correctional co-personal representatives’ deed on March 4, 2013, to address DeBerry Farm's legal description, and Vena executed a quitclaim deed on May 18, 2015, to transfer a "partial interest" in DeBerry Farm to herself and Richard as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The "county's office" thereafter issued personal property tax statements to Vena since at least 2019. She would "[t]ry to" pay the property taxes every year.

In or about 2019, Michael, through counsel, sent Vena a letter claiming "ownership" of DeBerry Farm. Vena then commenced her suit to quiet title to DeBerry Farm on February 4, 2020. Michael maintained the statute of limitations barred Vena's suit, filed his own counterclaim against Vena alleging he owned DeBerry Farm by adverse possession, and filed a crossclaim against Richard alleging the same. He further asserted his right to DeBerry Farm against his sisters Beth and Chesley Gregory ("Chesley"), Beth's husband David Miller ("David"), and all unknown heirs as third-party defendants. The day before trial, Michael submitted a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law but did not request specific findings on any particular issue.

The parties tried the case in a bench trial on September 16, 2021. At the outset of proceedings, the trial court granted an ...