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.

Hansen v. Pratt

Citations: 240 Ark. 746; 402 S.W.2d 108; 1966 Ark. LEXIS 1391Docket: 5-3871

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; May 2, 1966; Arkansas; State Supreme Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
Cableton Habbis, Chief Justice, presided over a case involving appellees Lucille Slack Pratt, W. N. Slack, and Earnestine Slack, against appellants Richard G. Hansen and his wife regarding property boundaries on Interstate Highway 30 in Benton, Arkansas. The Slack property was inherited and held since 1955, while the Hansen property was purchased on March 13, 1961. The Slacks claimed that the Hansens constructed a concrete driveway encroaching 46 feet onto their property, and sought its removal. The court confirmed a survey by County Surveyor Donald Huchingson that established the property line, showing the encroachment varied from 44 feet at the highway to over 26 feet further north, and ordered the Hansen driveway's removal within 60 days.

The Hansens contended that a boundary agreement existed between the Slacks and a prior owner, Albert Thomas, based on an alleged oral agreement concerning a future street construction, which never occurred. Testimony from Ernest Darnell, Jr. suggested a belief that the property line was 15 feet east of an existing fence, but no adverse possession claim was established due to the unimproved state of the land. There was no evidence that Frank Brown, a neighbor and supposed representative of the Slacks, had authority to negotiate boundary agreements.

Furthermore, the appellants claimed the boundary was established by acquiescence; however, this argument also relied on Brown’s purported authority and lacked evidence of any actions that would notify the Slacks of a claim to their property. The appellants argued the Slacks should be estopped from disputing the boundary since they allowed construction of the Hansen home without objection, again citing Brown’s assertions regarding the property line. The court found these claims unsubstantiated.

No evidence supports the claim that the appellees, non-residents of the state, were aware of the Hansens' construction on Slack's land. The appellants purchased the property with full knowledge of the title's ownership, as Hansen had previously employed Huchingson to conduct a survey to establish the correct boundaries, which confirmed that the contested strip belonged to the Slacks. This survey should have precluded Hansen from relying on statements made by a neighbor, Brown. The appellants argued for a "balancing of equities" to justify their request to purchase the encroached land due to the cost of removing the concrete driveway. They referenced a legal principle suggesting that equitable relief might be granted in cases of mutual mistake regarding boundaries, but this was deemed irrelevant since no mutual mistake was evident. Hansen acknowledged that he was aware of the encroachment, admitting he constructed the driveway knowing it was on property not his own, which undermines his claim for equitable relief. The court affirmed the decision, indicating that Hansen, having established his boundary line through a recognized surveyor, should have consulted the appellees before ignoring the survey findings and proceeding with construction. The appellants claimed to have spent approximately $4,000 on the driveway.