Fisher v. Cuningkin
577 S.W.3d 31
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Dispute over two adjacent lots in the D.S. Moore Addition in Benton; the recorded 1901 plat does not match the present physical layout (streets and lot placements diverge).
- Fisher owned deeds for “lots 5 and 6,” paid taxes, and possessed remnants of a burned house on the disputed ground; she sued the Cuningkins in 2015 for trespass and ejectment and later sought adverse possession of the disputed land.
- The Cuningkins held quitclaim deeds for “lots 1 and 2” (acquired 2007) and counterclaimed for quiet title, asserting the parties were mistaken about which deeded lots correspond to the ground in possession.
- County GIS and survey testimony established the plat’s descriptions are vague/conflicting and that surveyors could not locate lots 1 and 2 on the ground; residents may not occupy their deeded lots.
- The circuit court quietly titled “lots 1 and 2” to the Cuningkins and “lots 5 and 6” to Fisher but did not adopt a survey or describe boundary lines with particularity.
- Fisher appealed, arguing inadequate notice under Ark. Code Ann. § 18-60-506 and insufficient proof of color of title; the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without prejudice for lack of finality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court's decree is a final, appealable order | Fisher argued the decree was final and erroneous because Cuningkins lacked required notice and failed to prove color of title | Cuningkins relied on court's quiet-title decree and their deeds to support ownership | Not final: decree failed to describe boundaries with sufficient specificity to identify property solely by reference to the decree; appeal dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether the decree sufficiently identifies the disputed property/boundary | Fisher argued the decree did not establish the true boundaries and thus was defective | Cuningkins argued their deed identification of lots supported the court's ruling | Held defective: decree referenced plat lot numbers but did not fix actual boundaries or reference a survey; invites further litigation |
| Whether outstanding claims (adverse possession) were finally adjudicated | Fisher had an adverse-possession claim added; argued it was resolved against her | Cuningkins treated court’s ruling as resolving ownership of the ground in dispute | Not adjudicated: appellate court requires all claims be dismissed or adjudicated in writing for finality; adverse-possession claim remained unresolved |
| Whether merits (notice & color-of-title) could be reached on appeal | Fisher asked the court to reverse on procedural and proof grounds | Cuningkins urged affirmance of quiet-title judgment | Court declined to reach merits because order was not final and appeal was dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. Harper, 353 Ark. 328 (discusses finality requirement for appealable decrees)
- Petrus v. Nature Conservancy, 330 Ark. 722 (decree must describe boundary with sufficient specificity to be enforceable)
- Riddick v. Streett, 313 Ark. 706 (appointment of survey/replat may be required where plat is flawed; decree must resolve title without leaving lines to future survey)
- Penland v. Johnston, 97 Ark. App. 11 (survey-based descriptions may permit remand for clarification, but decree still must resolve rights)