Lafferty v. Everett
2014 Ark. App. 332
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Arkansas Court of Appeals, Division IV, reviews an adverse possession dispute over a 30-acre tract adjacent to 140 acres owned by the Laffertys.
- The fence along the disputed tract was claimed by the Laffertys as the boundary line; Everetts held record title to the disputed tract.
- Laffertys filed suit on December 11, 2006 after discovering the fence had been removed and barbed wire cut.
- Circuit court found the Laffertys failed to prove adverse possession, noting a lack of color of title and taxes paid on the disputed tract by the Laffertys.
- Evidence showed the fence had existed for up to 40 years but was often in disrepair and located in timber, not near section or quarter lines.
- The court deemed the Laffertys’ acts of possession (fence, occasional cattle and horses, fire lane) insufficient to establish adverse possession against the Everetts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether adverse possession was proven | Laffertys contend possession was open, notorious, and exclusive for more than seven years. | Everetts argue acts were either intermittent or not unequivocally indicating ownership, failing to meet the standard. | No; possession not proven to meet the required elements. |
| Whether color of title or taxes were required | Laffertys argue established use suffices without color of title or taxes on the disputed land. | Everetts insist statutory requirements apply unless vested before 1995, which was not shown by Laffertys. | No; rationale relied on absence of timely color of title and tax payments. |
| Whether the fence constituted a boundary line notice | Fence and long-standing use demonstrated boundary ownership. | Courts treated the fence as a convenience boundary, not a true boundary line. | No; evidence showed the fence was a convenience fence rather than a boundary line. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sutton v. Gardner, 2011 Ark. App. 737 (Ark. 2011) (establishes elements of adverse possession under common law and statute)
- Anderson v. Holliday, 65 Ark. App. 165 (Ark. App. 1999) (general standard for possession of land as own such as to affect owner)
- Dierks Lumber & Coal Co. v. Carroll, 223 Ark. 424 (Ark. 1954) ( outlines need for unequivocal use indicating ownership in woodland cases)
- Jones v. Dierks Forests, Inc., 238 Ark. 551 (Ark. 1964) (fence gaps can defeat adverse possession boundaries)
- Emerson v. Linkinogger, 2011 Ark. App. 234 (Ark. App. 2011) (de novo review of boundary/possession findings; substantial evidence standard)
- Coons v. Lawler, 237 Ark. 350 (Ark. 1963) (pedal possession to extent of claimed boundaries for woodland adverse possession)