456 S.W.3d 378
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- Appellants Fletcher and Fletcher appeal a trial court quiet title ruling in favor of appellees Verna Stewart and Linda Hayes over approximately 12 acres west of Center Ridge Road in Cleburne County.
- Appellees filed suit to quiet title by adverse possession and later added boundary-by-acquiescence as an alternative theory, asserting the family had possessed the land for decades.
- The subject property was deeded to appellants via other tracts, but appellees’ family had possession since at least 1951, with fences and use indicating the boundary line.
- A 1951 dispute involved a fence along the road; a survey indicated the boundary was west of the twelve acres, and evidence suggested a fence was built accordingly.
- The Burlesons (appellees’ parents) began building on the land in 1956 and used it continuously; deed to appellees occurred in 2005, but possession and use date back decades.
- The trial court found both boundary by acquiescence and adverse possession, vesting title in appellees; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse possession requires color of title post-1995, or vesting before 1995? | Appellees delayed color-of-title requirement due to vesting before 1995. | Color of title is required post-1995; otherwise claim fails. | Pre-1995 vesting allows common-law elements; color of title not essential. |
| Did permission given in 1993 defeat adverse possession? | Burlesons’ predecessors held adverse possession since 1967, not negated by later permission. | Permission could interrupt possession. | Permission did not defeat pre-1995 vesting or the tack of predecessors. |
| Was there abandonment sufficient to defeat adverse possession? | Appellees abandoned property after 2005, invalidating possession. | Abandonment requires clear, unequivocal proof; not shown here. | Abandonment not proven; possession endured for seven years. |
| Is boundary by acquiescence proven? | Employees’ and predecessors’ conduct showed acceptance of the west fence as boundary. | No explicit agreement, no fixed boundary recognized. | Evidence supports boundary by acquiescence; trial court not clearly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Neal v. Ellison, 266 Ark. 702 (Ark. 1979) (color of title not essential where actual possession exists)
- Sutton v. Gardner, 387 S.W.3d 185 (Ark. App. 2011) (vested rights before 1995 exempt from 1995 color-title requirement)
- McLaughlin v. Sicard, 977 S.W.2d 1 (Ark. App. 1998) (tacking of adverse-possession time permissible)
- Smith v. Smith, 385 S.W.3d 902 (Ark. App. 2011) (de novo review with deference to trial credibility)
- Clark v. Casebier, 215 S.W.3d 684 (Ark. App. 2005) (boundary by acquiescence inferred from conduct over years)