Johnson v. Kros
2014 Ark. App. 254
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Riverbend owns property north of the Johnsons; a pond (WRP easement area) sits adjacent to their common boundary. Riverbend sued to enjoin the Johnsons from trespassing, hunting, and charging third parties to use Riverbend’s land.
- Riverbend executed a Warranty Easement Deed with the U.S. (Wetlands Reserve Program) that expressly reserves to Riverbend the rights of title, quiet enjoyment, control of access (prevent trespass), and recreational uses including leasing.
- The Johnsons contend the Warranty Easement Deed and a separate Pond Easement to the U.S. put water and wildlife into the public domain, allowing public access and recreational navigation from the Johnsons’ land; they sought to join the U.S. as a third-party defendant.
- Riverbend produced affidavits and surveys showing (1) the easement reserves its right to control access and (2) the pond is not navigably accessible from the Arkansas River; the Johnsons offered contrary testimony but no proof overcoming the easement language.
- The trial court denied leave to file a third-party complaint (order not appealed), held Riverbend’s summary-judgment motion in abeyance briefly for discovery, then entered a permanent injunction enjoining the Johnsons from entering Riverbend’s property; adverse-possession claims were held in abeyance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnsons) | Defendant's Argument (Riverbend) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Warranty Easement/WRP converted the pond into public navigable water allowing public access and travel across the water | The easement and federal program place water and wildlife in public domain; recreational-navigation doctrine applies, allowing access from Johnsons’ land across the water | The Warranty Easement expressly reserves Riverbend’s right to control access and prevent trespass; the pond is not a navigable waterway | Court held the Warranty Easement does not open Riverbend’s property to general public recreation; injunction affirmed |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Johnsons argued factual disputes and claimed government representations created rights | Riverbend presented deeds, surveys, and an affidavit showing the easement’s language and lack of navigability; Johnsons failed to meet proof with proof | Court found no genuine issue of material fact precluding judgment; Riverbend entitled to injunction |
| Whether the Johnsons could join the U.S. as a necessary third-party defendant | Johnsons sought leave to file third-party complaint against U.S. asserting federal rights under the easement | Riverbend objected; trial court denied leave (order later amended) | Appellate court did not reach merits because the denial order was not included in the notice of appeal and therefore not before the court |
| Whether injunction scope and interlocutory appeal were proper | Johnsons argued injunction improperly restricted use of a federally funded resource | Riverbend argued equitable relief necessary to prevent trespass and protect reserved rights | Interlocutory appeal from an injunction is permitted; appellate court reviews injunction de novo but will not overturn absent abuse of discretion — here, no abuse found |
Key Cases Cited
- Harvest Rice, Inc. v. Fritz & Mertice Lehman Elevator & Dryer, Inc., 365 Ark. 573 (summary judgment standard and burden on nonmoving party)
- Wagner v. Gen. Motors Corp., 370 Ark. 268 (standard whether evidence raises factual issue)
- Brown v. SEECO, Inc., 316 Ark. 336 (equity and injunction review standard)
- Doe v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 357 Ark. 413 (injunction review and appellate standard)
- State v. McIlroy, 268 Ark. 227 (recreational-navigation doctrine discussion)
- Arkansas River Rights Committee v. Echubby Lake Hunting Club, 83 Ark. App. 276 (navigability and water-covered areas created by dams)
- Medlock v. Galbreath, 208 Ark. 681 (owner’s rights in bed and surface of nonnavigable streams)
- Lindsey v. Green, 2010 Ark. 118 (requirement to designate appealed order in notice of appeal)