Horton v. Taylor, 2012 Ark. App. 469

Appeal involves two parcels in Searcy County: Horton and wife claim an easement along a path over Brent and Robin Taylor's land; Taylors contend against it.
A separate adverse-possession claim concerns land north of a fence across a pond on a five-acre tract owned by Jim, Duford, and others; Hortons seek to quiet title there.
Circuit court denied the easement claim, denied adverse-possession claim, but granted an easement across the five-acre tract.
Trial included live witnesses and a court viewing of access routes; the court concluded an alternative access path existed and denied the easement by prescription.
On appeal, the standard of review is de novo for equity matters; credibility determinations are left to the trial court.
The court affirmed all rulings below.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prescriptive easement viability	Horton contends use was adverse and continuous for the statutory period.	Taylor argues use was permissive and not sufficiently hostile or open.	No prescriptive easement; use not shown for seven years or as adverse.
Easement by implication	There was an obvious, permanent servitude necessary for accessing the dominant land.	No evidence of an obvious servitude prior to severance or necessity.	No easement by implication; not reasonably necessary at severance.
Easement by necessity	Necessity existed to access Horton land after severance from common ownership.	Alternative access route existed and was feasible with less burden.	No easement by necessity; alternative access precludes necessity.
Adverse possession of northern three acres	Use and possession by Hortons and predecessors were adverse and continuous.	Use was permissive and not adverse; insufficient to defeat Taylor title.	Adverse possession not established; possession permissive and not hostile.

Roberts v. Jackson, 384 S.W.3d 28 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (prescriptive easements require adverse use with notice)
Dohle v. Duffield, 396 S.W.3d 780 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (burden to show adverse use by preponderance)
Berry v. Moon, 387 S.W.3d 306 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011) (necessity and obvious servitudes; time of severance)
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Ellison, 974 S.W.2d 464 (Ark. 1998) (reasonableness as a factor in necessity)
Watkins v. Arkansas Elder Outreach of Little Rock, Inc., 420 S.W.3d 477 (Ark. App. 2012) (reasonableness of necessity; trial court credibility)
Crum v. Craig, 379 S.W.3d 71 (Ark. App. 2010) (evaluation of necessity and alternative routes)
Mountain Pure, L.L.C. v. Affiliated Foods, Sw., Inc., 241 S.W.3d 774 (Ark. Ct. App. 2006) (reasonableness and practical access considerations)