434 S.W.3d 1
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- In 1985, Osborn conveyed an easement across his land to Donna Cole Tennison and her parents for a private road and utility ingress/egress, running from Jimmie’s Creek Road across Sections 12-13 for the exclusive use of grantors and grantees and their heirs and assigns forever.
- In 1992 Osborn retained a life estate; his daughters acknowledged that the Tennison family had an easement.
- In 1993 Donna Tennison married Carious Tennison; she permitted him to use the easement for farming, with others involved in farming also using the roads.
- Tennison filed suit in 2012 alleging Osborn obstructed the roadways with gates, locks, trees, and debris, seeking an injunction and permission for a larger gate.
- The trial court entered a February 2013 order and an amended March 25, 2013 order finding the A and B roads were easements in favor of Tennison and their heirs and assigns, and allowing gates and a wider gate for farming operations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the A road is part of the easement. | Osborn argues A road was not part of the easement. | Tennison contends A road is included in the easement. | A road is included; not abandoned. |
| Whether the court could authorize modifying the A road gate. | Osborn argues against gate modification and cites statute of limitations. | Tennison seeks wider gate to enable farming; limitations defense waived. | Gate modification authorized; limitations defense waived. |
| Whether the easement runs with the land to heirs and assigns and is not personal. | Osborn contends easement is personal to Tennison. | Tennison argues deed language runs with heirs and assigns. | Easement runs with the land to heirs and assigns; not personal. |
| Whether the appeal was timely and the court had jurisdiction. | Osborn argues lack of timely notice. | Tennison asserts proper jurisdiction. | Court had jurisdiction; timely notice of appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sluyter v. Hale Fireworks Partnership, 370 Ark. 511 (2007) (terminates easement by expiration or events; abandonment requires more than non-use)
- Johnson v. Ramsay, 76 Ark.App. 485 (2002) (abandonment requires intent to relinquish, not mere non-use)
- Jordan v. Guinn & Etheridge, 253 Ark. 315 (1972) (fence or gate obstruction of private easements must not unreasonably interfere with passage)
- Bean v. Johnson, 279 Ark. 111 (1988) (appurtenant easement runs with the land; extent to heirs and assigns)
- Winningham v. Harris, 64 Ark.App. 239 (1998) (intent of grantor governs deed interpretation; four-corners rule)
- Wilson v. Brown, 320 Ark. 240 (1995) (easement as appurtenance; runs with land)
- Acuna v. Watkins, 2012 Ark. App. 564 (2012) (equitable review of easement findings; defer to trial court credibility)