Dye v. Anderson Tully Co.
2011 Ark. App. 503
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Dye petitioned to quiet title to land; Anderson-Tully prevailed in trial court on adverse possession and partial summary judgment (2008).
- Appeal dismissed initially for lack of finality and missing proper legal description; trial later proceeded to trial.
- Trial court found Arkansas River boundary moved by accretion, locating the land in Arkansas County; Hopedale Cutoff deemed an avulsion with no boundary shift.
- Findingsheld that appellee has owned by adverse possession since 1967–68; judgment quieted title in Anderson-Tully in Arkansas County.
- On appeal, Dye argued lack of jurisdiction over county-line issue, improper partial summary judgment, and expert qualification; the appellate court reviews de novo with fact-finding given deference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not joining Arkansas and Desha Counties as parties | Dye asserts lack of jurisdiction and necessity of county-parties. | Anderson-Tully contends counties were not necessary parties; boundary resolved by court. | Trial court did not err; counties not necessary parties. |
| Whether the partial summary judgment on adverse possession was proper | Dye challenges reliance on prior motion and color of title evidence. | Anderson-Tully shows undisputed facts support adverse possession over seven years. | Summary judgment on adverse possession proper. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Gibbs Ferguson as an expert | Ferguson was not properly disclosed as an expert; testimony based on others' facts. | Notice given via affidavit; court did not abuse discretion. | No abuse of discretion; Ferguson admitted as expert. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nix v. Pfeifer, 73 Ark. 199 (Ark. 1904) (accretion-boundary rules for river boundaries)
- Gill v. Porter, 248 Ark. 140 (Ark. 1970) (avulsion effect on county boundary; man-made cutoff treated as avulsion)
- Porter v. Ark. Western Gas Co., 252 Ark. 958 (Ark. 1972) (river boundary moves with accretion)
- Pannell v. Earls, 252 Ark. 385 (Ark. 1972) (strong presumption in favor of accretion against avulsion)
- Darr v. Lambert, 228 Ark. 16 (Ark. 1957) (color of title and tax payments considerations)
- White River Levee Dist. v. Reidhar, 76 Ark. App. 225 (Ark. App. 2001) (elements of adverse possession and possession standards)
- Sykes v. Williams, 373 Ark. 236 (Ark. 2008) (summary-judgment standards and evidentiary review)