Anita G, LLC v. Centennial Bank
575 S.W.3d 561
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Centennial Bank sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Anita G (owner of disputed property formerly owned by CCFA) from blocking public use of Dayton Avenue and from developing the property.
- The circuit court granted the injunction based on Centennial’s prescriptive-easement claim (not its implied-dedication claim).
- Evidence showed long‑term public use of Dayton Avenue (about 1,869 cars daily) without explicit permission; CCFA knew of and did not stop the use.
- Anita G planned a large commercial development (40,000 sq ft) and would have begun construction absent the lawsuit.
- CCFA historically closed Dayton Avenue for limited periods during a six‑day annual fair for safety; closures were temporary and not intended to defeat public use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Centennial) | Defendant's Argument (Anita G) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Irreparable harm from denying injunction | Development/construction would irreparably impair public roadway use; monetary damages inadequate | Closure is only an inconvenience and monetary relief suffices | Court: Irreparable harm shown because construction could permanently destroy public access and money would not adequately remedy it — injunction proper |
| Whether use was open, notorious, adverse and rebutted presumption of permissive use | Public used Dayton openly and without permission; CCFA acquiesced — presumption of permissive use rebutted | Use was permissive (users had implied permission) | Court: Sufficient evidence of adverse, open, notorious use; presumption of permissive use rebutted (analogous to Gazaway) |
| Continuity of use for statutory period (7 years) | Brief annual fair closures did not interrupt continuous adverse use; closures were safety measures, not intent to terminate use | Temporary closures negate continuity and interrupt prescriptive period | Court: Temporary, brief closures did not interrupt continuity; use remained continuous for prescriptive period |
| Equitable defenses (weighing equities / laches) | Equity favors injunction to protect public access; delay not raised as fatal | Injunction's burdens on landowner and alleged delay (laches) justify denial | Court: Court properly weighed equities and found no reversible error; laches not ruled on below so appellate court declines to consider it |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Jacksonville v. Smith, 540 S.W.3d 661 (Ark. 2018) (defines irreparable harm standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Roberts v. Jackson, 384 S.W.3d 28 (Ark. App. 2011) (elements and statutory period for prescriptive easement)
- Merritt Mercantile Co. v. Nelms, 269 S.W. 563 (Ark. 1925) (presumption of permissive use of unenclosed land and how hostility can rebut it)
- Gazaway v. Pugh, 12 S.W.3d 662 (Ark. App. 2000) (large, long‑standing public use can indicate acquiescence overcoming permissive‑use presumption)
- Kelley v. Westover, 938 S.W.2d 235 (Ark. App. 1997) (overt owner acts to block use can interrupt prescriptive rights)
- Phillips v. Carter, 568 S.W.2d 24 (Ark. 1978) (temporary absences or closures do not necessarily show abandonment in adverse‑possession contexts)
- Bobo v. Jones, 222 S.W.3d 197 (Ark. 2006) (prescriptive‑easement claims are equitable in nature)
- Royal Oaks Vista, L.L.C. v. Maddox, 271 S.W.3d 479 (Ark. 2008) (defines laches as defense to untimely equitable claims)