Watkins v. Paragould Light & Water Commission
2016 Ark. App. 432
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Paragould Light & Water Commission (PLWC) sought an injunction to prevent Connie and Richard Watkins from interfering with tree trimming around longstanding PLWC power lines; the line had been maintained since at least 1983.
- The Watkinses repeatedly clashed with PLWC crews (1999–2006); Mrs. Watkins confronted crews on November 28, 2006, was arrested, and later convicted of misdemeanor disorderly conduct (upheld on appeal).
- PLWC commissioned a 2006 boundary survey relocating several southern fence-row trees off the Watkinses’ property; PLWC then attempted trimming and filed suit asserting a prescriptive easement and seeking injunctive relief.
- After a multi-day bench trial, the circuit court found a prescriptive right-of-way easement (20 feet wide) and enjoined the Watkinses from interfering; remaining counterclaims by the Watkinses were later dismissed on summary judgment.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals struck portions of the Watkinses’ briefs for Rule 1-5 violations (accusations of fraud and conspiracy against judges) and affirmed the injunction and summary-judgment dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Watkins) | Defendant's Argument (PLWC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Offensive accusations against judges | Watkins alleged judicial fraud, deceit, and conspiracy affecting the case | PLWC sought enforcement of Rule 1-5 and rejection of those claims | Court struck the portions of briefs accusing judges of fraud/conspiracy and discarded related points; warned of future sanction |
| 2. Sua sponte declaration of easement/no notice | Watkins argued Judge Laser improperly declared an easement without notice | PLWC argued easement was litigated as part of injunction and was addressed at pretrial and trial | Court held easement was litigated in bench trial context and the finding was proper as part of injunctive relief |
| 3. Validity/extent of easement (prescription) | Watkins disputed PLWC’s claimed easement and survey placement of trees | PLWC argued long-term maintenance and survey supported a 20-foot prescriptive easement | Court found PLWC established a prescriptive easement (10 feet each side of poles) and enjoined interference |
| 4. Survey credibility/stakes removed | Watkins said Hancock survey was inaccurate and stakes withdrawn so survey unreliable | PLWC relied on Hancock’s testimony and survey methodology (plat reference) | Court deferred to trial judge credibility determination and accepted Hancock’s survey despite stakes having been removed |
| 5. Judicial estoppel from prior inconsistent testimony | Watkins argued PLWC (via Fisher) previously claimed a blanket easement and is estopped from asserting a different position | PLWC acknowledged erroneous earlier testimony and corrected it at trial | Court refused to apply judicial estoppel — earlier criminal court did not rely on that testimony for conviction and Fisher admitted error |
| 6. Evidentiary rulings / cross-examination limits | Watkins contended trial court improperly limited cross-examination and excluded evidence | PLWC argued limits were proper for relevance, efficiency, and because similar impeachment evidence was before court | Court held trial judge properly exercised discretion under Ark. R. Evid. 611(a); no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Henry v. Eberhard, 309 Ark. 336, 832 S.W.2d 467 (Rule 1-5 authority on striking disrespectful appellate language)
- McLemore v. Elliot, 272 Ark. 306, 614 S.W.2d 226 (illustration of striking briefs for pervasive offensive language)
- White v. Priest, 348 Ark. 783, 73 S.W.3d 572 (discipline and professional conduct context for attorneys)
- Jenkins v. Dale E. & Betty Fogerty Joint Revocable Tr., 2011 Ark. App. 720, 386 S.W.3d 704 (deference to trial court credibility findings on competing surveys)
- Ward v. Adams, 66 Ark. App. 208, 989 S.W.2d 550 (same; survey and boundary credibility)
- Dupwe v. Wallace, 355 Ark. 521, 140 S.W.3d 464 (elements of judicial estoppel require reliance by first court)
- Watkins v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 85, 377 S.W.3d 286 (related criminal-appeal decision upholding Mrs. Watkins’s disorderly-conduct conviction)
Affirmed.