Ronald L. Clark et al. v. Richard Readnour et al.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION  ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS  JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, CHIEF JUDGE  DIVISION IV  CA07­108  December 12, 2007  RONALD L. CLARK et al.  APPELLANTS  APPEAL  FROM  THE  FAULKNER  COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CIV­  04­875]  V. HON.  CHARLES E. CLAWSON, JR.,  JUDGE  RICHARD READNOUR et al.  APPELLEES  AFFIRMED  This is a subsequent appeal after remand of a case seeking removal of obstructions  from a road asserted to be a county road established in 1910.  In our opinion of January 18,  2006, we remanded for the trial court to find whether the disputed road was public or private.  After hearing evidence relating to this issue on remand, the trial court found that appellants  had failed to sustain their burden of proving that the road they seek to open was in fact the  county road established in 1910.  Appellants argue that this finding was erroneous.  We  affirm.  A plea to remove obstructions placed on a public road sounds in equity.  See Hatchett  v. Currier,  249 Ark. 829, 461 S.W.2d 934 (1971).   In reviewing cases that sound in equity, we consider the evidence de novo, but will reverse a trial court’s findings only if they are  clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Alphin v. Alphin, 364  Ark.  332,  219  S.W.3d  160  (2005).  In  doing  so,  we  give  due  deference  to  the  superior  position of the trial court to view and judge the credibility of the witnesses.  Hunt v. Perry,  357 Ark. 224, 162 S.W.3d 891 (2004).  Here it was undisputed that the description of the public road opened in 1910 did not  match  the  location  of  the  road  that  appellants  sought  to  open.  Acknowledging  that  the  original description of the road was in error, appellants argued at trial that this was a mere  clerical error that could be corrected by the court.  The trial judge correctly rejected this  argument.  The description of the disputed road introduced at trial references a diagram on  an accompanying sheet, but no such diagram appeared in the records.  It is also undisputed  that several of the calls in the description, including the first call, would need to be modified  to make the description match the existing road bed.  Finally, the description states that the  county  road  opened  in  1910  is  7.75  miles  in  length,  whereas  the  existing  road  is  approximately five miles long.  It is essential that the description of a public road be sufficient to allow it to be located  from land records, and an insufficient description will invalidate a proceeding establishing  a public road.  Bowden v. Oates, 248 Ark. 577, 452 S.W.2d 831 (1970); Armstrong v. Cook,  243  Ark.  230,  419  S.W.2d  308  (1967);  Lemon  v.  Tanner,  173  Ark.  414,  292  S.W.  668  (1927).  The description must be definite enough not only to be located from land records,  but also definite enough to avoid future litigation.  Bowden v. Oates, supra.  The description ­2­  CA07­108  at issue was void for uncertainty, see Lemon v. Tanner, supra, and we hold that the trial  court did not err in finding that appellants failed to prove that the way in issue was in fact  a county road.  Affirmed.  ROBBINS  and BIRD, JJ., agree. ­3­  CA07­108 

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.