Priddy v. Wood

Citations: 245 Ark. 209; 431 S.W.2d 744; 1968 Ark. LEXIS 1180Docket: 4636

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; September 23, 1968; Arkansas; State Supreme Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Carleton Harris, Chief Justice, addresses a boundary dispute involving appellants Oran James Priddy and his wife, who purchased two lots and adjacent property in Linebarier Subdivision, Ouachita County, Arkansas, from Lloyd and Mildred Bumpass in May 1967. The Bumpasses had owned the property for approximately 20 years, while Moses Wood and his wife owned the adjoining eastern property. Prior to the sale, Wood and Bumpass discussed surveying the boundary, which was conducted by the County Surveyor, Grover Perry, who determined that the boundary extended onto land the Bumpasses had been using. 

When Wood began constructing a fence based on Perry's survey, the Priddys objected, leading to litigation in Chancery Court regarding property ownership. The court found that all parties, including their predecessors in title, mutually agreed to the boundary established by Perry's survey, which had been acknowledged and accepted by both Wood and Bumpass. The court ruled that the lawful boundary was as determined by the survey, granting each party ownership up to that line as if specified in their deeds.

On appeal, the Priddys argue that the court's findings contradict the law and evidence. Testimony revealed that Wood and Bumpass had coexisted peacefully without dispute over the property line for many years. Perry, the surveyor, confirmed he was contacted by Bumpass to conduct the survey, which was agreed upon without disagreement from either party. The survey shifted the boundary 20 feet west, affecting the area now claimed by Priddy. Wood stated that Bumpass was free to use the property and had no claims beyond what was in his deed. Following the Priddys' arrival, disputes arose regarding the visibility of the boundary markers, culminating in interference with Wood's fence construction.

The Bumpass garage encroached on the Woods' property and was subsequently relocated further onto Bumpass land. Wood took possession of the property shortly after the garage was moved. Mrs. Bumpass testified that she and her husband had occupied the disputed area for several years, planting flowers and fruit trees and erecting a fence which demarcated their property for 7 to 8 years. Mrs. Bumpass recounted that Mr. Bumpass confronted Mose Wood about the garage's location, leading to discussions about surveying the property. Mr. Bumpass agreed to a survey if it did not cost him anything and stated he was willing to move the fence if he did not lose land.

The Priddys, also involved, claimed the Perry survey was incorrect, but the court found other evidence more compelling. It was noted that Bumpass could not claim adverse possession of the land since he explicitly stated he only wanted land as per his deed, a claim not contested by him. Wood's account of the survey agreement was corroborated by Perry and was unchallenged by the Bumpasses. The Bumpasses' willingness to move their garage, which was found to be on disputed land, indicated they acknowledged the survey results.

Appellants argued that Mrs. Bumpass owned Lot 1 and had not agreed to a boundary change. However, her prior knowledge of the survey and the garage's relocation suggested her implicit consent. Arkansas law presumes that a husband acts as an agent for his wife regarding her separate property when she permits him to manage it. Evidence showed Mr. Bumpass handled arrangements for the sale to the Priddys, including the survey process, further undermining the appellants' claims.

Mr. Priddy was fully aware of the survey details and the relocation of the garage before moving onto the property. He confirmed that he knew the garage had been moved and indicated that he or his wife directed its placement, without objection to Mr. Wood regarding this move. Despite asserting he did not recognize the stobs as a boundary, Priddy did not intend to utilize the garage and had no objections to its relocation. The record indicates ambiguity regarding the true boundary line, but evidence of an agreement between the involved parties supported the Chancellor’s finding. The closeness of the survey and agreement to the dispute's onset was deemed irrelevant. Citing Smith v. Mefford, the court upheld the Chancellor's definition of the boundary lines according to the deeds, concluding that the evidence did not contradict this determination. Additionally, the appellants' loan application was contingent upon a land survey, and no ownership deeds were presented, although this presumption could be challenged with evidence. The Chancellor's decision was affirmed.