Opinion ID: 1766673
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legal Description (Point VII)

Text: Finally, the Menses argue that the trial court's judgment was not reasonably certain in two respects: first, that the prescriptive easement did not specify that only half of the width of the easement burdened the Mense land; second, that the judgment designating the fence row as the actual border was indefinite. The Court agrees in both respects.
At trial, all testimony, including that of both Robert Mense and the Watsons, indicated that the easement burdened the property of Donald Ross, a non-party, and the Menses equally. [3] This information was omitted from the trial court's description of the easement. When a single prescriptive easement will burden multiple owners, the trial court should carefully describe the burden of each. On remand, the trial court shall specify the portion of the easement that burdens the Menses' property.
Judgments should describe with reasonable certainty the land adjudicated therein, both in ejectment and actions to determine title. Hart v. T.L. Wright Lumber Co., 355 Mo. 397, 196 S.W.2d 272, 278 (1946). Mere reference to a fence in a judgment, without further description of that fence's actual location, is not a description with reasonable certainty. See Lollar v. Maness, 765 S.W.2d 695, 700 (Mo.App.1989). Here, the final judgment quieting title states that the new borderline is the fence line between the [southeast] quarter-quarter and Defendants' property south of it. Therefore, the judgment establishing the border as the fence line is affirmed, but on remand the trial court shall take the steps necessary to determine by metes and bounds the location of the fence line in conformity with its previous ruling.