Williams v. Double S Ranch, LLC
2016 Ark. App. 609
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Appellants (Helen Williams, Barbara Primm, Allen Primm) and appellee Double S Ranch, LLC (owned by Stan and Linda Sweeney) are adjoining owners of unenclosed, unimproved land in Bradley County sharing a common boundary.
- A road runs east–west along the entire shared boundary; surveys show the road and a narrow strip north of it lie entirely within Double S Ranch's legal description.
- Appellants used the road for decades and removed a gate erected by Mr. Sweeney; appellee then sued to quiet title, enjoin trespass, and clarify the boundary.
- Appellants counterclaimed asserting (1) a private prescriptive easement for access, (2) a public easement from county maintenance and public use, (3) adverse possession of the narrow strip north of the road, and (4) boundary by acquiescence placing the boundary at the road center.
- The circuit court quieted title to Double S Ranch (subject to county-maintained portion to a posted "End of County Maintenance" sign), enjoined appellants except for that maintained portion, and found appellants failed to prove prescriptive easement, adverse possession, or boundary by acquiescence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prescriptive easement (private or public) | Williams/Primm: long, open, continuous use without permission; county maintenance and public use created easement | Double S: use was permissive, no county maintenance except to posted sign, surveys show road on its land | Court: No prescriptive easement — use was permissive; insufficient evidence of public maintenance or adverse claim |
| Adverse possession of narrow strip north of road | Appellants: continuous, exclusive use by Williams/family since 1954; presumed ownership by use | Double S: family use presumed permissive; no hostile/exclusive possession or intent to hold against owner | Court: No adverse possession — appellants failed to prove required elements |
| Public easement via county maintenance | Appellants: county maintained road over 50 years creating public easement | Double S: county testimony that maintenance ended at posted sign; no maintenance on disputed segment | Court: No public easement — county did not maintain disputed segment beyond sign |
| Boundary by acquiescence (road center as line) | Appellants: long-accepted use implies middle of road is boundary | Double S: surveys and lack of evidence of mutual agreement or long-recognized line | Court: No boundary by acquiescence — no proof parties tacitly agreed road center was boundary |
Key Cases Cited
- Owners Ass'n of Foxcroft Woods, Inc. v. Foxglen Assocs., 346 Ark. 354 (2001) (elements and statutory period for easement by prescription)
- Lafferty v. Everett, 436 S.W.3d 479 (Ark. App. 2014) (standard of review for quiet-title and boundary actions)
- Steele v. Blankenship, 377 S.W.3d 293 (Ark. App. 2010) (deference to trial court on credibility and factual findings)
- Robertson v. Lees, 189 S.W.3d 463 (Ark. App. 2004) (adverse possession requires seven years and specified elements)
- Washington v. Washington, 425 S.W.3d 858 (Ark. App. 2013) (requirements for adverse possession and family-use presumption of permissive use)
- Myers v. Yingling, 279 S.W.3d 83 (Ark. 2008) (boundary by acquiescence arises from long tacit acceptance of a visible dividing line)