Court Opinion

ID: 9678096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:11:42.794084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:01.894118
License: Public Domain

Robert L. Brown, Justice, concurring. I concur. In his petition to quiet title, Fischer asserted that he was the owner of the property at issue, and the circuit court specifically found that he held a deed for all ofBlock O, which included Lots 3-6. This being the case, Fisher appears to be the true owner of Lots 3-6. As the majority correctly points out, adverse possession requires that the possession be actual, open, notorious, continuous, hostile, and exclusive, and be accompanied with an intent to hold adversely and in derogation of, and not in conformity with, the right of the true owner. See Bonds v. Carter, 348 Ark. 591, 75 S.W.3d 192 (2002). Clearly, Fischer could never meet the requirements for adverse possession if he was the true owner of the property, because he would lack the necessary intent to possess adversely. While he indeed did make a creative argument to the circuit court that he held his own property adversely to the true owner, he could not have intended to hold adversely to himself. For that reason, his arguments with respect to his intent to adversely possess fail, and the matter simply becomes a typical forfeiture case for nonpayment of taxes. Because redemption does not appear to be an issue in this appeal, I too would reverse the circuit court’s judgment confirming title in Fischer. Hannah, C.J., and Imber, J., join this concurrence.