Court Opinion

ID: 9642728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:07:52.852055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:51.857990
License: Public Domain

Josephine Linker Hart, Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. As stated by the majority, appellee Jaquelyn Housley testified that she and her late husband acquired the property in 1977, and when her husband built the fence in 1980, he constructed the fence where he thought the property Hne might be. She testified further that her husband built the fence “so that he could run cattle” and that her husband “thought he put it as close to the property line as he . . . thought it was. . . but his main objective was to run cattle.” Housley first learned of the actual property Hne when she obtained a survey on January 16, 2002. The trial exhibits show that while the fence Hne closely approximated the property Hne at the southwest and northeast comers of Housley’s property, the fence Hne angled inside the property Hne on the south and east sides so that the fence’s southeast comer was inside Housley’s actual southeast comer. In my view, Housley testified that, while her husband placed the fence where the boundary Hne might be, his main objective in building the fence was to run cattle. This testimony evidences their intent, not to claim property just to the fence Hne, but instead to construct a fence as close to the property Hne as possible in order to run their cattle. Consequently, Housley’s testimony establishes that she and her husband intended to claim their property to the property Hne, not the fence line. Moreover, according to appellant Robert Hattabaugh, and as corroborated by appellant David Ware, in 1999 a person working for Housley used a bulldozer and pushed trees over the fence, knocking the fence down in places. As this occurred before Housley learned of the discrepancy in 2002, it further indicates that she did not treat the fence line as the property line. In sum, there was no testimony from Housley showing that she and her husband intended the fence to be the property line, so Housley’s testimony does not support a claim of boundary by acquiescence, and appellants presented testimony that supported Housley’s position as well. Accordingly, the only proof of their claims of acquiescence came from appellants. When discounted, as it was by the circuit court, there is no evidence remaining to support reversal of this case. Given the deference accorded the circuit court in determining the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, we should affirm the court’s finding that there was no boundary by acquiescence. See Robertson v. Lees, 87 Ark. App. 172, 189 S.W.3d 463 (2004). Furthermore, we recently restated settled law that a landowner who puts his fence inside his boundary line does not thereby lose title to the strip on the other side. Robertson, supra. The cases relied on by the majority do not rebut this position. Rather, the fences described in Boyette v. Vogelpohl, 92 Ark. App. 436, 214 S.W.3d 874 (2005), and Summers v. Dietsch, 41 Ark. App. 52, 849 S.W.2d 3 (1993), were not constructed by the parties who owned the property but were instead constructed by predecessors in title. I am deeply troubled by the holding of this case, which supports the notion that a landowner, by putting up a fence, can lose title to his own property. Certainly, this case suggests that a landowner who wishes to put up a fence of convenience for such purposes as fencing in cattle must either expend funds and pay for a survey or err on the side of caution by placing the fence on his neighbor’s land. I respectfully dissent. Crabtree, J., joins.