Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Laney v. Ark. Real Estate Co.
Citations: 234 Ark. 187; 350 S.W.2d 911; 1961 Ark. LEXIS 555Docket: 5-2493
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; November 20, 1961; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
A lawsuit was initiated by the children of W. H. Laney to establish their title to approximately seventy acres near Little Rock, claiming ownership through two tax deeds from 1941 and 1944, and by adverse possession. The opposing parties, Arkansas Real Estate Company, Inc. and Arkansas Warehouse Corporation, held quitclaim deeds from 1956 and 1957. The chancellor deemed the tax deeds invalid due to inadequate descriptions and concluded that the appellants had only established title by adverse possession to seven acres in the northern part of the tract. This area had been occupied by tenants since around 1944, specifically Bell, who farmed the land until 1952. The chancellor's finding regarding the seven acres was unchallenged on cross appeal, supported by evidence of continuous occupancy and enclosure by fences. In contrast, the southern part of the land was intermittently used by W. H. Laney for cattle and horses from 1944 until his death in 1951, but there was insufficient continuous cultivation to claim adverse possession for this section. The chancellor concluded that the entire southern part was not continuously occupied, overlooking evidence that it had been fenced from around 1943 to 1953. Testimonies from former tenants and employees confirmed the land was enclosed by substantial three-wire fences during that period, reinforcing the appellants' claim of adverse possession based on continuous enclosure and dominion. Additional support came from disinterested surveyors knowledgeable about the tract's boundaries. The plat illustrates most of the Laneys' east fence, with a surveyor confirming he walked along their south fence from the southwest corner of their property. A 1958 independent survey for the highway department depicted both the east and west fences on the Laney property. A third surveyor, hired by the appellants in 1959, identified parts of the east and west fences, though they were in poor condition at that time. The evidence presented by the appellees is inadequate to counter the appellants' robust case. The primary witness for the appellees, Robert M. Traylor, who holds a significant interest in the two appellee companies, had only a casual relationship with the property prior to 1956 and claimed it was unfenced from 1943 to 1956. This assertion is contradicted by numerous witnesses with greater familiarity with the land and supported by the surveyors' findings. Consequently, the testimony for the appellees does not effectively challenge the appellants' claim of adverse possession for over seven years. The court reversed the decree and remanded the case for a decree quieting title in favor of the appellants and for further proceedings regarding a sewer line easement claimed by the city of Little Rock.