Opinion ID: 2388702
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Boundary agreement

Text: Nunley argues there was insufficient evidence supporting the Chancellor's finding that she and Orsburn agreed on the location of the boundary line. Although we review chancery cases de novo, we will not set aside a chancellor's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. Ark.R.Civ.P. 52(a) (1992). We must also give due regard to the chancellor's opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses. Dudley v. Little River County, 305 Ark. 102, 805 S.W.2d 645 (1991). For there to be a valid oral boundary line agreement, four factors must be present: (1) there must be uncertainty or dispute about the boundary line; (2) the agreement must be between the adjoining landowners; (3) the line fixed must be definite and certain; and (4) there must be possession following the agreement. Malone v. Mobbs, 102 Ark. 542, 146 S.W. 143 (1912); Payne v. McBride, 96 Ark. 168, 131 S.W. 463 (1910). See Jones v. Seward, 265 Ark. 225, 578 S.W.2d 16 (1979); Bryson v. Dillon, 244 Ark. 726, 427 S.W.2d 3 (1968). The Chancellor was presented with considerable evidence that there was a dispute or uncertainty regarding the location of the boundary line prior to the oral agreement. Two prior owners of the property, Thornsberry and Strait, testified they were aware that Goble Nunley contested the location of the boundary line as set by the 1986 survey. Orsburn stated his knowledge of the dispute caused him to enter into a boundary agreement with Bula Nunley. Clearly, Orsburn and Nunley were adjoining landowners as they shared a common boundary line. There was also evidence that the boundary line which had been set by the 1986 survey was definite and certain. Testimony was presented that the line was marked on the property with posts which had been placed on the property by Hale. Finally, there was evidence that after the agreement, Orsburn went into possession by constructing a storage building to which there was no objection by Nunley until after the building was completed. Access to the building required use of the disputed land. We cannot hold the Chancellor's finding of facts clearly erroneous of a boundary agreement was sufficient. Affirmed.