Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. 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.
Hester v. Chambers
Citations: 264 Ark. 941; 576 S.W.2d 195; 1979 Ark. LEXIS 1284Docket: 78-213
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; January 29, 1979; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
In a dispute between adjoining landowners, the trial court ruled that the appellants, Johnny Hester and his wife, had an easement by estoppel for access to their home across a road that the appellees, Mark L. Chambers and his wife, had dedicated. The road, initially claimed to extend to the boundary fence, was found to stop ten feet short of that point. The background includes the Chambers bulldozing the road in 1965, grading it in 1969, and dedicating it in 1970. In 1973, Mr. Chambers acknowledged to the appellants that the road reached the fence but later informed them of the ten-foot gap only after they had begun building their house. The trial court determined that the easement was personal to the appellants and could not be extended to public use. The appellants argued that the road should be classified as public, while the appellees contended that their representations were based on an innocent mistake, which should not invoke estoppel. The court cited established principles of estoppel, indicating that a party inducing reliance on a misrepresentation cannot later assert their rights to the detriment of the misled party. The appellate court found that the Chambers' failure to correct their earlier representation until after the appellants had substantially built their home constituted grounds for estoppel. The assertion of an innocent mistake was deemed without merit, as the Chambers allowed the construction to proceed before addressing the error. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with their findings. Justices Harris, George Rose Smith, and Purtle concurred with the decision.