429 S.W.3d 336
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- Adjoining landowners Reynolds and GFM dispute the boundary between their tracts in Independence County, Arkansas.
- GFM sought to quiet title and prevent trespass after Reynolds allegedly cut timber, built fences, and blocked access on GFM’s property.
- Trial evidence included a 2009 survey locating the boundary at the southern boundary of Section 10, not the fence on GFM’s side.
- Reynolds claimed the fence line on GFM’s property was the boundary by acquiescence and sought title to the disputed land.
- GFM presented witnesses showing deer stands and hunting club activity south of the fence and evidence of nonrecognition of the fence as a boundary by GFM.
- Trial court quieted title in accordance with the 2009 survey and held prescriptive easement in the road on Reynolds’ property for GFM, its successors, assigns, and invitees, but not the public; Reynolds timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boundary by acquiescence existed? | Reynolds contends fence line is boundary by acquiescence. | GFM argues no mutual recognition or tacit agreement; fence not boundary. | Boundary by acquiescence not proven; trial court affirmed. |
| Prescriptive easement in Reynolds’ road? | Reynolds argues no seven-year adverse use by GFM. | GFM asserts long-standing use as prescriptive easement. | Prescriptive easement not proven; trial court reversed on this issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strother v. Mitchell, 382 S.W.3d 741 (Ark. App. 2011) (boundary by acquiescence requires tacit agreement, not fence alone)
- Willows, LLC v. Bogy, 384 S.W.3d 28 (Ark. App. 2013) (adverse use for prescription requires overt, adversarial use; seven-year period applies)
- Boyster v. Shoemake, 272 S.W.3d 139 (Ark. App. 2008) (subjective belief of boundary insufficient without mutual recognition)
- Roberts v. Jackson, 384 S.W.3d 28 (Ark. App. 2011) (prescriptive easement requires adverse use; burden on plaintiff)
- Acuna v. Watkins, 423 S.W.3d 670 (Ark. App. 2012) (clear, deference to trial court on credibility; nuisance of boundary disputes)