Court Opinion

ID: 7818430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:44:58.729285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:39.959244
License: Public Domain

Carleton Harris, Chief Justice, dissenting. From the standpoint of proof, I consider this case to be very close, but I do not think that appellees sustained their view. Not only that, but in my opinion the equities are entirely with the City of Fort Smith. Admittedly, the city purchased the property in 1935 from the parents of appellee, Charlie France. Now, France, and others to whom the parents had subsequently conveyed part of the land (after conveying it to appellant) are claiming this same land by adverse possession. I think the evidence indicates that the possession of appellees commenced with permission by the city, and I cannot agree with the majority that appellees have established actual, open, notorious, peaceful, continuous, hostile, and exclusive possession for more than seven years. Of course, there must also be the intent to hold adversely and against the rights of the true owner. This land is an absolute necessity to the City of Fort Smith in protecting its water supply (Lake Fort Smith) and having purchased the land, it is hardly fair that the city be required to again acquire the same land through eminent domain proceedings. I respectfully dissent.