Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; May 4, 1970; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Carleton Harris, Chief Justice, presided over a case involving appellants J. W. McCarty and Lucy McCarty, who sold property to Robert Earl Blaylock and his wife on December 24, 1958. The litigation centers on a subsequent deed dated May 19, 1959, where the McCartys allegedly conveyed additional adjacent lands. The McCartys claim they did not execute this deed, asserting it is a forgery, and filed a suit on August 26, 1968, to confirm their title to the disputed lands. Following trial, the court dismissed their complaint for lack of equity.
Testimony included that of the McCartys, who maintained they only executed the initial deed, and Blaylock, who claimed he met the McCartys at the notary's office on May 19, where both signed the deed and the agreed purchase price of $800 was paid. McCarty provided a log showing he was in Sallisaw, Oklahoma on that date for several hours and denied being at the notary's office, while Mrs. McCarty affirmed she did not sign the deed.
The court found the deed was not a forgery, aligning with the evidence that the McCartys had previously conveyed the property to Frank E. Hampton on December 7, 1956. McCarty acknowledged discussions with Blaylock about the property and its previous sale. Notably, Hampton returned the property to the McCartys on May 19, 1959, the same date as the contested deed to the appellees, strengthening the appellees' position.
McCarty claimed he received $800 for a 40-foot strip of land but did not provide a deed to Blaylock at the time of payment. He stated he was too busy to draft a deed when Blaylock approached him, and later gave Blaylock a deed that indicated the Hamptons had transferred the property back to the McCartys for them to hold as security. Despite receiving the payment in 1959, the McCartys never deeded the strip to Blaylock, raising questions about Blaylock's patience and carelessness. McCarty acknowledged that a signature on a contested deed resembled his own, and while he claimed to have discovered the deed's issues in 1963, he took no action for five years, which is atypical behavior for someone who believes they have lost property due to forgery. The evidence strongly supports the appellees' position, leading to the court's decision to dismiss the complaint. Additionally, Denton, who considered purchasing land from McCarty, found discrepancies in McCarty's claims regarding his land ownership based on tax records but was unaware of any alleged forgery. McCarty ultimately agreed to sell Blaylock the 40-foot strip, stating he would provide a deed later, which he initially delayed.
