Summary
The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed a circuit court judgment establishing a disputed property boundary by acquiescence in favor of David and Venice Yingling. The court held that evidence concerning the parties’ predecessors’ recognition of a fence line supported acquiescence, and that Myers could not challenge the later submission of a legal description after prematurely appealing a nonfinal order. The court also upheld the refusal to allow Myers to amend his pleadings to assert a prescriptive easement because the evidence did not establish the required adverse use for the statutory period.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Myers could challenge the Yinglings' introduction of a survey and legal description after the Yinglings had rested their case, when Myers had prematurely appealed from an order that contemplated submission of the description.
- Whether the evidence supported the circuit court's finding that the disputed boundary had been established by acquiescence.
- Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by refusing to allow Myers to amend his pleadings to assert a counterclaim for a prescriptive easement.
Holdings
- The circuit court did not err in allowing the Yinglings to submit and introduce the legal description after the earlier appeal was dismissed, because the earlier order was nonfinal, expressly contemplated further action, and Myers himself prematurely interrupted the proceedings by appealing and lodging the record.
- The circuit court's finding that the west-side fence constituted the boundary by acquiescence was not against the preponderance of the evidence.
- The circuit court did not manifestly abuse its discretion by refusing to allow Myers to amend his pleadings, because the evidence did not establish a prescriptive easement.
Key quotations
“This court has previously made it clear that, in boundary-line disputes, a legal description is necessary before any order rendered by the trial court is final and appealable.” (87)
“Nothing in our cases on acquiescence requires possession or occupation of the property; indeed, this court has held that acquiescence may arise “without the necessity of adverse use to the line.”” (89)
“Thus, there is no evidence of overt, adverse use for the statutory period, and it was therefore not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse to allow Myers to amend his pleadings to add a counterclaim for a prescriptive easement.” (90)
Factual background
The Yinglings' property and Myers's property were separated by Overstreet Lane, a privately maintained roadway. The Yinglings claimed that a fence along the west side of the road represented the boundary, while a survey placed the legal line east of the road. Testimony from predecessors and neighboring landowners supported the conclusion that the fence had long been treated as the boundary, although the parties also used and maintained the roadway. The Yinglings had installed a gate across the roadway and initially gave Myers a key, but later changed the lock, prompting the dispute.
Procedural history
The circuit court initially found insufficient proof of adverse possession but determined that the parties and their predecessors had acquiesced in a fence line as the boundary. Because the initial order lacked a legal description, Myers filed an appeal from a nonfinal order; the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice in Myers v. Yingling, 369 Ark. 87, 251 S.W.3d 287 (2007), and held that a subsequent circuit-court order entered after the record had been lodged was void. On remand, the circuit court received a survey and legal description, again found a boundary by acquiescence, and entered an order identifying the Yinglings as the owners. Myers appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed.