Washington v. Washington
2013 Ark. App. 54
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- This is a partition dispute over 360 acres in Izard County between Shirley and Charles Washington and siblings Andrew, Alice Dockins, Joe, Georgia Norris, and George Washington Jr.
- Parents Annie and George Washington Sr. conveyed the property to Charles in February 1959, who then conveyed it back to the parents in April 1959; Charles’s deed to the parents was recorded April 16–17, 1959.
- The 1959 deed back to the parents was given to Georgia Norris in 1973 but not recorded until 2003, after both parents had died.
- The circuit court held the parties as tenants in common, ordered a sale of the property, and allocated tax/expense recoveries; a later order credited Charles about $42,000 for taxes/expenses.
- Appellants sought reversal on (a) validity of the deed back to the parents, (b) adverse possession, (c) laches/waiver/estoppel, and (d) hearsay regarding the parents’ intent; the court denied these and partition was affirmed.
- The final partition decree lacked a precise property description, prompting remand to amend the decree with a more specific description.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the deed back to the parents | Washington contends no delivery/intent to vest title immediately. | Washington argues delivery occurred; presumption of delivery from grantee’s possession. | Deed delivery presumed; findings supported by evidence; no clear error. |
| Adverse possession against co-tenants | Washingtons claim ownership by adverse possession should prevail. | Actions were insufficiently hostile or continuous to vest title. | Court found no proof of adverse possession; presumption of subordinate possession remained. |
| Laches, waiver, estoppel | Doctrine should bar appellees from asserting interests. | Lower court failed to rule on these defenses; rulings not preserved for appeal. | Issue not reviewable due to lack of a final ruling on these defenses. |
| Hearsay objections and parents’ statements | Testimony about parents’ intent was improper hearsay. | Testimony was non-hearsay or harmless and objections were not timely raised. | Hearsay objection overruled; testimony considered; no prejudice; evidence adequate for the finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- McNeely v. Bone, 287 Ark. 339 (1985) (standard of review for bench trial findings)
- Jaramillo v. Adams, 100 Ark.App. 335 (2007) (credibility of witness findings within fact-finder's province)
- Harvey v. Ledbetter, 219 Ark. 27 (1951) (delivery of deed and presumption of delivery)
- Barker v. Nelson, 306 Ark. 204 (1991) (delivery passes title even if not recorded)
- Williams v. Kitchell, 212 Ark. 114 (1947) (delivery of deed and title passage rules)
- Ferguson v. Haynes, 224 Ark. 342 (1954) (present conveyance without express conditions on recording)
- Lindsey v. Christian, 222 Ark. 169 (1953) (delivery and conditions of recording)
- Bellamy v. Shryock, 211 Ark. 116 (1947) (possession by co-tenant contrasted with title owner)
- Davis v. Burford, 197 Ark. 965 (1939) (hostility and notice in adverse possession analysis)
- Sutton v. Gardner, 2011 Ark. App. 737 (2011) (factors for adverse possession among co-tenants; heightened scrutiny in family contexts)
- Greenway Land Co. v. Hinchey, 2010 Ark.App. 330 (2010) (necessity for precise property description in partition decree)
- Petrus v. Nature Conservancy, 330 Ark. 722 (1997) (affidavits or boundary descriptions in decrees)
- Jennings v. Burford, 60 Ark.App. 27 (1997) (remedial amendment to partition decree to add description)
- Adams v. Atkins, 97 Ark.App. 328 (2007) (procedural amendment to decree for specificity)