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.
Lovell v. Magnet Cove School District No. 8
Citations: 301 Ark. 94; 782 S.W.2d 41; 1990 Ark. LEXIS 1Docket: 89-155
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; January 8, 1990; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
The case addresses whether the legislature can preemptively eliminate a claim of adverse possession before it vests, concluding affirmatively for both inquiries. The appellants occupied land in Hot Spring County since 1975, while the appellee school district asserted ownership based on a 1951 deed from the federal government. Following the school district's ejectment action filed on September 11, 1985, the appellants defended their claim through adverse possession and raised equitable defenses, questioning the court's jurisdiction. The school district sought summary judgment based on legislation that prohibits adverse possession claims against school property, arguing the statutes are constitutional since they apply before a claim vests. The court ruled in favor of the school district, citing Act 209 of 1981, which explicitly states that no adverse possession rights can be established on public school system property if the claim is initiated after January 1, 1983. This act serves as legal notice that such claims will be ineffective and dismissed by courts. The court also referenced Act 354, which similarly prevents adverse possession claims against various public entities, including school districts. Both acts were effective before the appellants' claim vested in 1982. The court cited precedent in Pinkert v. Lamb to support the notion that legislation can bar claims that have not yet vested without infringing on vested rights. The appellants contended that a specific legislative sentence implied that claims could not be cut off until after January 1, 1983, but the court clarified that the legislature did not intend to extend unvested claims. The court refrained from addressing whether the appellants were barred due to not initiating their lawsuit by January 1, 1983, or if the statute could void a vested claim. Additionally, the court found no merit in the appellants' arguments regarding jurisdiction and the reinstatement of the school district's case after a prior dismissal for lack of prosecution, noting that the latter argument was not preserved for appeal. The ruling was affirmed, with Justice Turner not participating.