Ricco K. Burman v. Warren Zebel
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
WENDELL L. GRIFFEN, JUDGE
DIVISION IV
CA06-479
December 20, 2006
RICCO K. BURMAN
APPELLANT
AN APPEAL FROM THE BENTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[No. CIV-2005-1690-2]
V.
HON. DAVID S. CLINGER, JUDGE
WARREN ZEBEL
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
Ricco Burman appeals from an order of the Benton County Circuit Court granting
summary judgment in favor of appellee Warren Zebel, which was based upon a finding that
a legal description in a Commissioner’s Deed in favor of appellant was incomplete. He
argues that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment, contending that the legal
description was not incomplete. We affirm.
The property in question is at 1904 Oakwood Drive, Bentonville. Appellant filed an
ejectment action on September 19, 2005, alleging that he was the owner of Bentonville
property formally owned by appellee.1 The complaint stated that appellant acquired title to
1
The complaint also alleged an action for unlawful detainer, but after a hearing on the
issue, the circuit court dismissed the unlawful-detainer claim and proceeded on the ejectment
claim only.
the property by virtue of a Commissioner’s Deed, which described the property as follows:
PT LOT 11 SD C6
Section: 19 Township: 20N
Range: 30W
Addition: Oakwood Heights
City: Bentonville
Parcel Number: 01-03508-000[.]
Acres: 0
Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment on October 24, 2005, alleging that he
was the record owner of the property and that the description in appellant’s deed was
incomplete, rendering the deed void. After hearing arguments from the parties, the circuit
court entered an order on March 8, 2006, granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment.
The court found that the legal description in the Commissioner’s Deed was incomplete and
thus void. The court ordered the Commissioner of State Lands to cancel the Commissioner’s
Deed and return the money paid by appellant for the property.
Appellant argues that the circuit court erred in granting appellee’s motion for
summary judgment. He contends that the legal description in the Commissioner’s Deed was
sufficient because the Deed references a specific lot within an established subdivision. He
further contends that the legal description was sufficient because appellee had notice of the
charge against the property.
Summary judgment should be granted only when there are clearly no genuine issues
of material fact to be litigated and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Riverdale Dev. Co. v. Ruffin Bldg. Sys. Inc., 356 Ark. 90, 146 S.W.3d 852 (2004). The
burden of sustaining a motion for summary judgment is the responsibility of the moving
party. Pugh v. Griggs, 327 Ark. 577, 940 S.W.2d 445 (1997). Normally, we determine if
2
summary judgment was appropriate based on whether the evidence presented by the moving
party in support of its motion leaves a material fact unanswered, viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party, resolving all doubts and inferences against the
moving party. George v. Jefferson Hosp. Ass’n Inc., 337 Ark. 206, 987 S.W.2d 710 (1999);
Adams v. Arthur, 333 Ark. 53, 969 S.W.2d 598 (1998). However, when there is no dispute
on the relevant facts, we need only determine whether the moving party was entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Craven, 79 Ark. App.
423, 89 S.W.3d 369 (2002).
A tax deed is sufficient if the description itself furnished the key through which the
land might be definitely located by proof aliunde. Liggett v. Church of Nazarene, 291 Ark.
298, 724 S.W.2d 170 (1987). A tax deed may be declared invalid for want of a sufficient
legal description of the land involved. Payton v. Blake, 362 Ark. 538, — S.W.3d — (2005);
see also Gardner v. Johnson, 220 Ark. 168, 246 S.W.2d 568 (1952) (invalidating a deed
containing the description: “SW corner NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 1, Township 7 North, Range
4 West, 5 acres E of R”); Sutton v. Lee, 181 Ark. 914, 28 S.W.2d 697 (1930) (recognizing
as invalid the description: “Parts of lots 3 and 4 in block 36 in the city of Hot Springs,
Arkansas”); Walls v. Mills, 149 Ark. 670, 225 S.W. 225 (1920) (invaliding a deed
containing the description: “Pt. NW NW Section 7 Township 12 S, Range 29 W. 11.16
acres”). A reference to a subdivision may validate a property description. Payton, supra.
In Moseley v. Moon, 201 Ark. 164, 144 S.W.2d 1089 (1940), the supreme court held as
sufficient the description: “Lots 10, 11, and 12 of Block 21 W of the town of Swifton,
3
Jackson county, Arkansas.” The court viewed a plat of Swifton and saw only one blocked
numbered 21, and the block embraced the three blocks in question.
Unfortunately for appellant, the deed in this case states “PT LOT 11,” which refers
to part of a lot. The deed does not specify which part of Lot 11, which renders locating the
specific land in question impossible. The circuit court was correct in finding that the
description in the Commissioner’s Deed was invalid.2
Appellant also argues that the legal description is sufficient because appellee had
notice of the charge against his property. He argues that appellee resided at the property in
question and that the descriptions of the property during the tax sale proceedings and in the
subsequent tax deed were sufficient to notify appellee of the charge against his property.
However, appellee’s possession of the property does not alleviate the requirement that one
must have a sufficient description in a deed to have valid title to the property. Because the
description in the tax deed was insufficient, appellant does not have a valid deed.
Affirmed.
HART and BIRD, JJ., agree.
2
The record contains an affidavit from the Benton County Assessor. Attached to the
affidavit was a copy of the assessment card regarding the property in question, and the
Assessor stated in the affidavit that one could go to the microfiche files in her office or in the
circuit clerk’s office for an official copy of the deed. However, similar testimony was
rejected as insufficient to identify the land in Payton.
4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
