Hillside Development Co. v. Fields
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
LAURA DENVER STITH, Judge.
Defendant-Appellant Roscoe Fields alleges that the trial court erred in rejecting his argument that he had an implied, or “visible” easement over the portion of the property of Plaintiff-Respondent Hillside Development Company on which sits a part of the driveway to Mr. Fields’ home. We agree. The undisputed facts establish all of the elements for creation of a visible easement: the driveway constitutes an obvious and visible benefit to the residential lot, was constructed as a permanent means of access to and from the garage, was used for many years prior to the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Curnutt v. Scott Melvin Transport, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1995
- Greisinger v. KlinhardtSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
- Missouri State Oil Co. v. PessinaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1950
- Causey v. WilliamsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1965
- Schnider v. M. E. H. Realty Investment Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1946
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Zipper v. Health MidwestMissouri Court of Appeals · 1998
- Russo v. BruceMissouri Court of Appeals · 2008
- Baetje v. EisenbeisMissouri Court of Appeals · 2009
- Post Hill Homeowners Ass'n v. WheelerMissouri Court of Appeals · 2000
- Brick House Cafe & Pub, L.L.C. v. CallahanMissouri Court of Appeals · 2002
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.