Roberts v. Jackson
2011 Ark. App. 335
Ark. Ct. App.2011Background
- Jackson claims a prescriptive easement over Roberts/Wade property (715 N vs 717 N) to repair/maintain his residence; roof overhangs onto the neighboring lot; the trial court awarded a 10-foot-wide easement along the west side.
- Jackson claims 1/2 real property interest via quitclaim from aunt Rosie Cravens; Roberts owns 715 N Street and challenges the easement.
- City of Fort Smith requires repairs to Jackson’s house under the property maintenance code; noncompliance could lead to a misdemeanor warrant; case proceeded after a TRO.
- Jackson testified he lived at 717 N Street 1973–1981 and helped maintain both properties; he treated the west side as his family’s property and did maintenance without explicit permission.
- Roberts testified she did not permit Jackson on her property from 1996–2008; several police reports were filed about Jackson and others on the west side; she feared intrusions and noise.
- Trial court found a prescriptive easement for maintenance/repair, ordered a 10-foot-wide easement along the west side, and required removal of a vehicle to complete repairs; TRO was dissolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jackson proved a prescriptive easement despite early permissive use | Jackson argues adverse use established | Roberts/Wade argue initial use was permissive | Yes, adverse use supported; not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the prescriptive easement was abandoned during 1982–1994 | Jackson remained intermittently active; occupants stayed | No evidence of non-use sufficient to prove abandonment | No abandonment established |
| Whether Jackson has standing to obtain a prescriptive easement when not owner/tenant of adjacent land | Jackson’s family use and occupancy suffice for prescription | Standing requires ownership/tenancy | Courts recognize prescription independent of ownership/tenancy in such contexts |
| Whether the court erred in granting a 10-foot easement width | 10 feet reasonable to access and repair | City setback generally 5 feet; width exceeds necessary use | Not clearly erroneous; 10 feet supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Jones, 977 S.W.2d 903 (Ark. App. 1998) (adverse use may ripen into a right after seven years under certain circumstances)
- Fields v. Ginger, 925 S.W.2d 794 (Ark. App. 1996) (roadway usage can become adverse without explicit notice in long‑standing open use)
- Wilson v. Sahuman, 205 S.W.3d 164 (Ark. App. 2005) (adverse use requirement for prescriptive rights; overt activity needed)
- King v. Powell, 148 S.W.3d 792 (Ark. App. 2004) (non-use beyond seven years may abandon prescriptive rights)
- Olsen v. East End Sch. Dist., 143 S.W.3d 576 (Ark. App. 2004) (procedural bar for issues not ruled on below; failure to obtain ruling)