Webb v. Miller

Citations: 236 Ark. 245; 365 S.W.2d 450; 1963 Ark. LEXIS 607Docket: 5-2903

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; March 11, 1963; Arkansas; State Supreme Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Virgil Webb and his wife Wilma filed a complaint against Albert J. Miller and his wife G-race, alleging wrongful entry onto their property, specifically the west 17.8 feet. The complaint accused the appellees of digging holes, destroying survey markers, piling fencing materials, and depriving the appellants of their land's use and enjoyment. The appellants sought a mandatory injunction to prevent further interference and require the removal of a fence they claimed was improperly located on their property. 

In response, the appellees denied the allegations and claimed that they had occupied the disputed land for over seven years, asserting that the fence in question had been established before the Webbs purchased their property. They argued that the Webbs were estopped from claiming the land or disputing the fence's location due to prior agreements regarding property lines among predecessors in title.

At trial, the court dismissed the complaint for lack of equity, which led to the appeal by the appellants. The dispute centers on a 17.8-foot section of land. The Millers purchased the property in 1956 and later conveyed a portion to A. D. Morris in 1959, who subsequently sold it to the Webbs in 1961. The relevant fence, erected by Miller in 1957, alters the Webbs' east-west property measurement from the deed's stipulated 200 feet to slightly over 182 feet. An engineer testified for the Webbs, supporting their claim with a survey that indicated the Webbs' property extended 17.8 feet beyond the Miller fence. The appellees did not present a surveyor's testimony, with Miller stating he had previously measured and established the boundaries that were accepted by Morris.

A witness highlighted that parts of both the Webb property and his own extend into the highway. He described a survey conducted with a surveyor's marking for measuring 200 feet east and west but did not confirm Webb's claim to that distance. Miller, who previously owned the property, attempted a survey by Mr. Shreve but reported incorrect results and ceased work. After selling the land to Morris, Miller and Morris measured 65 feet north-south; however, no measurement was made for the east-west direction. Morris recalled that Miller indicated the west fence marked the property's west boundary, and he accepted that without dispute. The testimony suggested that Morris believed the fence defined the boundary, but he never verified it through a survey. The court concluded that the evidence did not establish an agreed boundary line, referencing previous case law which indicated that the existence of a fence alone does not determine title. Several cases were cited to support that mere belief in a boundary based on a fence does not constitute an agreement, especially when deeds lack explicit reference to such boundaries. In situations where property descriptions are solely based on legal terms without any agreed monument, adverse possession for a statutory period is required for title establishment.

In Carney v. Dunn, the court affirmed that the trial court's finding was not contrary to the evidence, specifically regarding the establishment of a boundary line. Mr. LePlant, Sr., as the owner of both lots, had the authority to determine the boundary as the center line per the recorded plat, which he and his heirs did. The court emphasized that the parties were bound by their deed descriptions. Mr. and Mrs. Webb had no knowledge of any agreed boundary line or of Miller’s claim regarding such an agreement, and their deed did not imply any exceptions. Despite the existence of a fence, it did not impact the title to the disputed area, and the Webbs believed they were purchasing the full 200 feet as conveyed by Mr. A. D. Morris, who did not show them the land nor declare any boundary disputes with Miller. The court noted that acquiescence could confirm a boundary line after seven years, but this did not apply here since Morris purchased the property in 1957, and the fence was built in 1956, not allowing for the required period of acquiescence. The Millers had the entire tract and could have specified the fence in their conveyance to Morris. The claims of adverse possession and estoppel by the appellants were rejected, as the Webbs were not informed that the fence represented an agreed boundary line. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's decree and remanded the case with directions to issue a decree consistent with its opinion, noting that the fence was later replaced by Morris. The appellees did not submit any brief to the court.