Clark By And Through Clark v. Eubanks, 570 S.W.3d 506

Petitioner Wilson Clark (by attorney-in-fact son Jason Clark) sought a prescriptive easement across land owned by Marsha and Jimmy Eubanks to reach Clark's property.
The road intersects a county road, runs across the Eubankses' parcel, and leads to Clark's eastern boundary.
Clark alleged continuous, open, notorious, hostile, and adverse use for over fifty years; Clarks testified to using and requesting county grading about twice yearly for ~20 years and no prior objections until Jimmy Eubanks bought the property in March 2017.
Jason Clark testified Eubanks threatened to block the road, install cattle guards, and even shoot users; Eubanks denied threats, said he planned temporary road work and might install a cattle guard if he ran cattle.
The circuit court denied the petition, finding Clark failed to prove adverse or hostile use for the seven-year statutory period required to create a prescriptive easement.
Clark did not raise a public-easement theory below; the court affirmed dismissal on the prescriptive-easement failure and declined to reach a public-easement claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Clark established a prescriptive easement by adverse use for the seven-year statutory period	Clark: family and predecessors openly used and maintained the road for decades, ripening into a prescriptive easement; prior county grading supports continuous use	Eubanks: he did not object or prohibit use before 2017; no overt acts put prior owners on notice of hostility	Court: Usage was permissive until at least 2017; even if adverse from 2017, it did not meet the seven-year statutory period — petition denied
Whether a public/county easement should be recognized	Clark: (on appeal) road is a county road and should be a public easement	Eubanks: No argument on public-easement claim was presented at trial	Court: Public-easement issue was not litigated below; Clark did not raise it in circuit court, so the appellate court affirmed without addressing it

Wilson v. Schuman, 205 S.W.3d 164 (Ark. App. 2005) (elements and burden for establishing an easement by prescription mirror adverse possession principles)
Fullenwider v. Kitchens, 266 S.W.2d 281 (Ark. 1954) (usage that continues openly for seven years after owner has or should have had notice ripens into an absolute right)
Baysinger v. Biggers, 265 S.W.3d 144 (Ark. App. 2007) (length of use alone cannot convert permissive use into an adverse prescriptive right; some overt act or circumstance putting owner on notice is required)