Showen v. Moore

Citations: 242 Ark. 553; 414 S.W.2d 613; 1967 Ark. LEXIS 1282Docket: 5-4222

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; May 8, 1967; Arkansas; State Supreme Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

An appeal is being reviewed by the court concerning a summary judgment from the Pulaski County Circuit Court regarding a property dispute. Morris H. Moore, the plaintiff, filed an unlawful detainer suit against Frank Showen to reclaim a dwelling occupied by Showen, who had not paid rent since October 1964. Showen contended that there was never a landlord-tenant relationship between him and Moore, asserting that Moore had no right to possess the property. Following the submission of pleadings, exhibits, and Showen’s deposition, the trial court granted Moore's motion for summary judgment, awarding him possession of the property.

Showen's appeal focuses on the assertion that genuine material facts remain unresolved, necessitating evidence presentation, which he claims was obstructed by the summary judgment. Key facts revealed during the proceedings include that Showen, a disabled veteran, has lived in the house since birth and was unaware until after his mother’s death in 1964 that the legal title was held by Moore. Showen acknowledged that his mother had some agreement regarding the property with Moore, but he did not see the written agreement until after her death and never contested her ownership prior to that point.

Appellant claims an undivided one-half interest in a property as one of two surviving heirs of his mother, who obtained the title through her father, Joseph McCoppin, and a gift from Mrs. Moore. He asserts further title acquisition via adverse possession since the appellee claimed ownership following his mother's death. Appellant states that he and his deceased mother paid general taxes on the property from 1951 to 1962 and possessed the property continuously for approximately 70 years. He was born in the property and asserts that his possession has been adverse since 1947. He acknowledges not paying rent or having insurance on the property. William Joseph McCoppin, appellant's relative, lived with them until his death in 1955. 

A significant lease agreement was established on December 30, 1937, between the appellee and Mrs. Showen and her brother, which is not disputed by the appellant. The lease details that prior to her death, Mrs. Maude Addis Moore owned the property and allowed the undersigned to occupy it, provided they maintained it, paid for repairs, secured insurance, and covered all taxes. The lease acknowledges Morris Moore as the property's current owner, bequeathed by Mrs. Moore’s will, and outlines the undersigned's obligations to maintain the property and pay expenses.

Possession, use, and occupancy of the premises by the undersigned or anyone claiming through them will not be considered adverse to Morris Moore. The undersigned is not required to pay rent during the contract's duration, which can be terminated by either party with thirty days' written notice via U.S. mail. Upon termination, the undersigned must vacate the premises. The lease was executed on December 30, 1937, and was notarized and filed on October 26, 1939, with no questions regarding its authenticity. 

The appellee filed a complaint under Ark. Stat. Ann. 34-1503, defining unlawful detainer as holding possession of property without right after the lease term ends, or refusing to vacate after a written demand for surrender. The appellee also filed a motion for summary judgment under Ark. Stat. Ann. 29-211, which allows judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact. A summary judgment can be granted on liability even if there are disputes about damages. Case law indicates that unlawful detainer actions provide landlords a quick means to reclaim property from non-paying tenants, and tenants can contest possession by proving ownership or initiating a separate title action. Additionally, motions for summary judgment must be evaluated favorably towards the resisting party, and disputes of fact cannot be resolved through such motions.

Judgment should only be entered summarily if there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact. The appellant did not dispute the appellee’s claim to possession but based his claim on inheritance from his mother, who received title through her father and a gift from the appellee’s mother, Mrs. Moore, and also through adverse possession. Evidence indicates that following Mrs. Moore's death, both the appellant’s mother and her brother recognized the appellee’s ownership of the property. The lease agreement and the appellant's own testimony affirm that they continued to occupy the property under this lease. The appellant acknowledges that he was aware his mother was in possession under an agreement with the appellee and claims title through inheritance, despite his mother’s admitted lack of title in the lease. He did not assert any claim to the property adverse to his mother during her lifetime and does not contest the lease's authenticity. The lease confirms the appellee’s ownership and establishes the appellant’s mother as a tenant. Additionally, the appellant admits to occupying the property with his mother's permission and has not paid rent, taxes, or insurance. The lease's purpose was to provide housing for the appellant’s mother and brother while preventing adverse possession claims. The court concluded that no justiciable controversy existed, affirming the trial court's decision based on substantial evidence. However, this ruling does not prevent the appellant from pursuing title in a separate action.