__________

94-3893

__________

Adam Ferrif; Angela Ferrif; *

*

Plaintiffs - Appellants, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

The City of Hot Springs, * Western District of Arkansas

Arkansas; John Does, 1-10, *

*

Defendants - Appellees. *

__________

Submitted: April 10, 1996

Filed: April 26, 1996

__________

Before LOKEN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

__________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Adam and Angela Ferrif appeal the amount of the judgment entered in

their favor against the City of Hot Springs, Arkansas following a court

trial. After finding that the Ferrifs' constitutional rights had been

violated when the city razed three homes without adequate notice and that

the total damages suffered were $36,500, the court awarded the Ferrifs onethird of that amount. The only issue raised on appeal is whether the

Ferrifs were entitled to receive the total amount. We reverse and remand.

In 1985, the Ferrifs purchased three adjacent homes in Hot Springs,

Arkansas with their friends and real estate partners, John and Jackie

Allen. At that time the Ferrifs and Allens were tenants in common, with

the Ferrifs holding an undivided one-third interest
-2-

and the Allens holding the remaining two-thirds. The Ferrifs and Allens

then were living in California and used the three homes as rental

properties.

Initially the properties returned a profit, but they soon began to

generate losses. The Allens developed financial difficulties and became

unable to pay their share of the mortgage, maintenance, and other costs.

By 1987, the Ferrifs were paying the bulk of all expenses. In February

1989, Adam Ferrif wrote to the Allens requesting that they make their

contributions. The Allens instead agreed to assign their interest in the

property to the Ferrifs. Thereafter the Ferrifs paid all of the costs

associated with the properties. Adam Ferrif testified that the Ferrifs

also gave a car to the Allens in exchange for their property interest and

that the Ferrifs and Allens saw no need at that time to record the transfer

of interest. Eventually the Ferrifs' bankers convinced them that the

transaction should be recorded. A deed was executed by the Allens to the

Ferrifs on January 24, 1994; it was recorded February 3, 1994.

Meanwhile, in 1991 the City of Hot Springs razed the houses. The

city had begun receiving complaints about the properties in 1989;

apparently vagrants were using them for illicit activities. The concern

was heightened by the presence of a school across the street. Late in

1990, the city began to consider condemnation. It sent three letters, one

for each dwelling, to the Allens' address of record in California. They

had moved several times after purchasing the properties, however, and the

letters were returned, marked "Addressee unknown." At a December 1990

meeting, the city council decided to condemn the three houses if repairs

were not made. The city posted notices on each of the houses and again

used certified mail to send copies to the Allens' old California address.

All three were returned. No one attempted to contact the mortgagee,

Arkansas Bank & Trust Co. The houses were destroyed and the debris removed

in March 1991. The Ferrifs had no actual notice
 Judgment was entered against the city only. The Ferrifs 1

never identified John Does 1-10. 

 The city's counterclaim was not addressed by the court in 2

its order, and the city has not raised it on appeal.

-3-

of the condemnation until July 1991, when a potential purchaser informed

them that the houses were gone.

The Ferrifs filed this action against the city in the United States

District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. They alleged that the

condemnations were unreasonable seizures in violation of the fourth

amendment and unlawful deprivations of property without due process under

the fourteenth amendment. They sought damages of over $100,000 under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. The city counterclaimed for $8,131.23, the cost of removing

the homes from the property.

By consent of the parties, the case was tried by a magistrate judge

in August 1994. The court found that the city had violated the Ferrifs'

constitutional rights by not providing sufficient notice of the

condemnations. The only evidence at trial regarding the value of the

1

properties was an appraisal submitted jointly by the parties. It assessed

their total value in 1985 at $44,500. The lots alone were valued at

$8,000. The court found that the total loss caused by the constitutional

violation was $36,500, the difference between the total value and the value

of the lots. Neither the city's liability, nor the total damage amount is

contested on appeal.2

The court concluded that the Ferrifs were entitled to only one-third

of the total damage because they held only one-third of the legal interest

in the properties on the date of condemnation in 1991. Judgment was

therefore entered in their favor in the amount of $12,166.66. On appeal

they assert their right to receive the total damage amount of $36,500.
-4-

The Ferrifs argue that they are entitled to the full damages because

they held equitable title to the two-thirds of the properties to which they

did not hold legal title in 1991. Even though the damages award is based

on a constitutional violation, the Ferrifs' property right is created by

state law. E.g., Gattis v. Gravett, 806 F.2d 778, 780 (8th Cir. 1986).

The state law issues whether the Ferrifs held equitable title in 1991 and

whether their interest entitles them to the full damages are considered de

novo. Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 231-33 (1991); see

also Ellis v. Great-West Life Assurance Co., 43 F.3d 382, 386 (8th Cir.

1994). 

Under Arkansas law equitable title is "the present right to the legal

title." Hendriksen v. Cubage, 309 S.W.2d 306, 308-09 (Ark. 1958). Adam

Ferrif's description of the 1989 oral assignment of the Allens' interest

in the properties to the Ferrifs is undisputed. His testimony established

that the Allens "assign[ed] their rights in the Oak Street Property" to the

Ferrifs. Subsequent conduct of the parties confirmed this transfer. See

Langston v. Langston, 625 S.W.2d 554, 555 (Ark. App. 1981). The Allens

made no payments of any kind related to the properties after the transfer

and before the condemnations, a fact corroborated by an officer of the

mortgagee. These facts lead to the conclusion that under Arkansas law the

Ferrifs possessed equitable title at the time of the condemnations to the

two-thirds of the properties still recorded in the Allens' names.

Arkansas recognizes that "the ownership of the equitable estate is

regarded by equity as the real ownership, and the legal estate is, as has

been said, no more than a shadow. . . . [T]he remedies given to the

equitable owner are intended to preserve his estate, and to protect it both

against the legal owner and against third persons." Hendriksen v. Cubage,

309 S.W.2d 306, 309 (Ark. 1958) (emphasis added, citations omitted).

Moreover, Arkansas will allow a single cotenant to maintain an action on

behalf of all
 Statutory authority for municipalities to raze dilapidated 3

buildings is granted by Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-203 (Michie 1987).

 Similarly, there is no merit to the city's arguments that 4

the Ferrifs were not the real parties in interest or lacked

standing with respect to the two-thirds of the properties legally

held by the Allens.

-5-

cotenants, even though it is preferable to join all cotenants. Perry v.

Rye, 267 S.W.2d 507, 509-10 (Ark. 1954).

Full recovery by the Ferrifs also seems consistent with the Arkansas

code. The most relevant section reads:

As soon as the amount of compensation that may be due to the

owners of the property taken, or to any of them, shall have

been ascertained by the jury, the court shall make such order

as to its payment or deposit as shall be deemed right and

proper in respect to . . . the proportion to which each owner

is entitled and may require adverse claimants of any part of

the money or property to interplead, so as to fully settle and

determine their rights and interests according to equity and

justice.

Ark. Code Ann. § 18-15-307(a) (Michie 1987). Neither side questions the 3

total amount of damages found by the trial court here or that the city has

a liability for that amount. Interpleading the Allens was unnecessary

because they had surrendered all of their interest to the Ferrifs. For

these reasons the magistrate judge erred in awarding the Ferrifs only onethird of the damages.4

Other equitable considerations support this conclusion. The Ferrifs

alleged in their complaint that they were the owners of the properties.

The city admitted that allegation in its answer, denying only that there

had been any constitutional violation. It was not until trial, or shortly

before, that the city even raised the issue of the Ferrifs' right to the

entire amount of the loss, and the Ferrifs state it would then have been

too late to join the Allens. In addition, the city's counterclaim against

the Ferrifs was for the full cost of removing the three homes, not only for
-6-

one-third. Finally, since it is undisputed that the Ferrifs gained legal

title to the entirety of the properties shortly after this suit was

commenced, there is no realistic danger that the city will be exposed to

conflicting liabilities. Under all the circumstances, the Ferrifs were

entitled to be awarded the total sum of damages -- $36,500.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed as to the amount of damages,

and the case is remanded for entry of judgment consistent with this

opinion.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.