Town of Gilbert v. Fruehauf
2013 Ark. App. 17
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- This is an appeal from a summary judgment favorable to Fruehauf and against Gilbert on whether a disputed area is a public street or an abandoned railroad right-of-way.
- The 1903 plat did not name or delineate the disputed area as a street, though it shows other streets and alleys.
- In 1912, a correction deed to the Missouri and North Arkansas Railroad was filed; Gilbert incorporated as a town in 1913 with railroad rights nearby.
- A railroad station and track map delineating the railroad right-of-way through Gilbert was published, and the disputed area has been fenced since about 1948 when public use ceased.
- The trial court concluded there was no dedication of the area as a street and that any public use was abandoned; the issue is whether there was a valid dedication or a prescriptive easement.
- This court affirms, holding there was no dedication and any prescriptive easement claim has long since been abandoned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the area a valid dedication as a city street? | Gilbert argues the plat and deed history show dedication to public use. | Fruehauf argues absence of intent and lack of delineation as a street, plus indication of a railroad right-of-way. | No valid dedication found. |
| If not a dedication, could a prescriptive easement exist and is it abandoned? | Gilbert would rely on continued public use to support a prescriptive easement. | Public use ceased in the 1940s and any prescriptive claim was abandoned long ago. | Any prescriptive easement claim is abandoned; no ongoing right. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Cabot v. Brians, 216 S.W.3d 627 (Ark. App. 2005) (dedication can be implied from plat and surrounding language)
- City of Sherwood v. Cook, 865 S.W.2d 293 (Ark. 1993) (elements required for dedication; intent and acceptance)
- Ayers v. State, 26 S.W. 19 (1894) (intent is essential to dedication)
- Gallas v. Alexander, 263 S.W.3d 494 (Ark. 2007) (summary judgment standard and burden after prima facie entitlement)
- Stromwall v. Van Hoose, 265 S.W.3d 93 (Ark. 2007) (appellate review of summary judgment — resolving material facts)