Parkerson v. Brown
2013 Ark. App. 718
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- Parkerson appeals a circuit court ruling denying adverse possession and boundary by acquiescence for a lakeside tract and finding abandonment of a prescriptive easement.
- The tract lies between Parkerson’s Bayshore Drive property and the Choates’ property on Lake Hamilton; the ownership history includes a 1992 quiet-title order and a 1997 Fullerton/Choate transfer.
- A 1990 chancery court suit concluded Parkerson had an easement over most of the property and quieted the Fullerton title using a future survey to be conducted, which never occurred.
- Tax records show Parcel 4688 was mislisted, forfeited to the State, and ultimately conveyed to Janet Brown in 2004; Parkerson was not notified of the delinquency or sale.
- Brown petitioned to confirm title in 2007; after intervention by the Choates, a consent judgment in 2008 divided title among Brown, the Choates, and others; Parkerson intervened claiming an interest via easement and adverse possession.
- The trial court found Parkerson abandoned the 1992 easement, failed to prove adverse possession, and failed to establish a boundary by acquiescence; it denied Parkerson’s petition to quiet title.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery rulings on trial | Parkerson contends discovery was improperly denied to uncover facts about boathouse relocation, tree removal, and similar fraud issues. | Defendants argue discovery issues were not preserved on appeal and no abuse of discretion occurred. | Discovery rulings affirmed; no abuse shown. |
| Effect of summary judgment denial | Parkerson argues the court should have granted summary judgment against the Lands Commissioner, tax officials, Brown, and Lewsader. | The court notes that denial of a summary-judgment motion is not reviewable on appeal after trial. | Affirmed; summary-judgment denial not subject to review. |
| Admissibility of certain evidentiary items | Parkerson asserts admission of 1990 quiet-title materials and other documents would prove her case. | Defendants contend the items were not probative, not properly proffered, or not admissible for impeachment. | Evidentiary rulings upheld; no reversible error found. |
| Adverse possession and abandonment | Parkerson claims she possessed and paid taxes on the easement area and maintained it, establishing adverse possession and not abandoning the easement. | Court found seven-year nonuse, lack of tax evidence, and that the State held title for a period preventing adverse possession; boundary line did not align with Parkerson. | Parkerson failed to prove adverse possession or abandonment. |
| Acquiescence boundary | Parkerson contends neighboring conduct established a boundary by acquiescence in her favor. | Court found no evidence of neighbor acquiescence and that the established boundary tracked the Fullerton/Choate line. | No boundary by acquiescence; trial court’s findings affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Owners Ass’n of Foxcroft Woods, Inc. v. Foxglen Assocs., 346 Ark. 354 (Ark. 2001) (abandonment and adverse-possession standards in association contexts)
- Rick’s Pro Dive ’N Ski Shop, Inc. v. Jennings-Lemon, 304 Ark. 671 (1991) (adverse-possession statutory framework; tax-sale notice considerations)
- Strother v. Mitchell, 2011 Ark. App. 224 (Ark. App. 2011) (review of factual findings; deference to trial court credibility)
- Carr v. Gen. Motors Corp., 322 Ark. 664 (1995) (general rule on evidentiary standards and course of discovery)
- Reynolds v. GFM, LLC, 2013 Ark. App. 484 (Ark. App. 2013) (appellate review of trial court procedures and evidence)
- Horton v. Taylor, 2012 Ark. App. 469 (Ark. App. 2012) (statutory requirements for adverse-possession color of title and taxes)