Dohle v. Duffield
2012 Ark. App. 217
Ark. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellants Bertha and Fredric Dohle and Kathy and James Dohle challenge a circuit court order granting prescriptive easements to Duffield parties over their property, including a cemetery access road and a spring house.
- The eastern tract was conveyed by the Duffields to DeDe Duffield Johnson and Jim Johnson; the Johnsons reside there and obtain water and power for the spring house from the western tract.
- The western tract, including the cemetery and a gap to the cemetery, was bought by the Dohles in 1989; the cemetery and an ingress/egress route lie on the Dohles’ land, with a 75-foot gap between boundary and cemetery access.
- Duffields began using the gap and spring house since 1985; the spring house provides water to the Johnsons’ residence via a pipe crossing the Dohles’ property; Duffields paid for electricity to run the spring-house pump.
- Appellants intermittently blocked access to the gap (2000, 2004, 2009) and padlocked the spring house (October 2009), prompting the Duffields to sue for trespass, and for prescriptive easements in the gap and spring house.
- The trial court granted prescriptive easements for the gap and spring house, finding use was open, notorious, and adverse; on appeal, the court reversed in part regarding the gap’s continuity, but affirmed the spring-house prescriptive easement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the spring-house use was adverse. | Duffields contend use was adverse; Dohle admits some interference. | Dohle argues use was permissive. | Not clearly erroneous; use was adverse. |
| Whether Duffields’ use of the gap was continuous for seven years. | Use was continuous and uninterrupted for seven years. | Dohle interrupted use on three occasions. | Trial court clearly erred; use was not continuous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carson v. Cnty. of Drew, 354 Ark. 621 (Ark. 2003) (standard for reviewing factual findings in equity cases; preserving rights by prescription requires adverse, not permissive, use)
- Kelley v. Westover, 56 Ark.App. 56 (Ark. App. 1997) (continuity of use; owner interruptions can break prescriptive entitlement)
- Hannah v. Daniel, 221 Ark. 105 (Ark. 1952) (notice and knowledge as to adverse use; inquiry deemed notice)