Brown v. Stephens
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 614
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CA 09-115
BILLY JOE BROWN and JULIA
BROWN
APPELLANTS
V.
Opinion Delivered September 23, 2009
APPEAL FROM THE WHITE
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CV-07-716]
HONORABLE BILL MILLS, JUDGE
STANLEY E. STEPHENS and
BARBARA DEANNA STEPHENS
APPELLEES
AFFIRMED
COURTNEY HUDSON HENRY, Judge
Appellants Julia and Billy Joe Brown appeal the order of the White County Circuit
Court granting a petition to quiet title filed by appellees Barbara and Stan Stephens. For
reversal, the Browns argue that the Stephenses failed to prove adverse possession or a
boundary by acquiescence with regard to a disputed tract of 14.96 acres. We affirm the trial
court’s decision.
The Browns own the north one-half of the northeast fractional quarter of Section 6,
Township 10 North, Range 6 West in White County. They purchased the property in June
2005 from the heirs of Wilson Arnold. Stan Stephens owns the southern half of this quarter
section. Stephens’s parents conveyed the property to him in October 1997, reserving a life
estate, which expired at the death of Stephens’s father in 2004. In May of 2006, the Browns
engaged the services of Kenny Fletcher to survey their property. The survey revealed that
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 614
the section in which the parties’ properties are located does not have the standard acreage for
a section. Fletcher calculated the Browns’ property as consisting of 113.78 acres and the
Stephenses’ property as having 80.46 acres. The survey identified an old fence running east
and west on the southern portion of the Browns’ property that is north of the true boundary
line shown on the survey. The area between the old fence and the actual boundary line
comprises 14.96 acres. Sometime after the survey, the Browns constructed a fence on the
boundary line established by the survey.
In December 2007, the Stephenses filed a quiet-title petition asking the court to
declare that they owned the 14.96 acres. They alleged that they had acquired ownership of
the property to the old fence line either by adverse possession or under the theory that the
old fence had become the boundary by acquiescence. The Browns answered the complaint,
asserting that they held record title to the property and that any use by the Stephenses and
their predecessors in title had been permissive.
The trial court conducted a hearing on June 23, 2008. Kenny Fletcher, the surveyor,
testified that he placed the old fence on the survey because he preferred his surveys to reflect
all types of possessory lines. Although he did not track the fence through the woods, he said
that he examined each end of the fence and verified that it was fairly straight. Fletcher
testified that the fence was an effective boundary between the two properties.
Appellee Stan Stephens testified that his parents purchased the property in 1960 from
Irma and Jack Stephens (no relation to appellees) and that they lived on the property until
-2-
CA 09-115
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 614
their deaths. Stan Stephens was born in 1957 and grew up on the property, and he said that
the old fence had always been there. Stan Stephens stated that his father maintained the old
fence and that his father bush-hogged, sowed grass, and ran cattle up to the fence line.
Stephens recalled that one of his father’s bulls broke through the old fence into Wilson
Arnold’s property and that Arnold shot the bull. Stan Stephens said that this was the only
problem that ever arose between the neighbors and that there was never any dispute about
the fence. He further testified that the old fence was in fair condition and adequate to contain
his cattle. He said that he had also maintained the fence, trimmed trees, and cut firewood on
the property in dispute. Stephens testified that there was an old pond on the 14.96 acres that
he had used to water his cattle before he dug a new pond. He believed that the old fence
marked the boundary of his property.
Dean Staggs, age seventy-two, testified that he had lived within a half mile of the
properties since he was a young boy. As a child, he hunted on the property, and it was on
his route to the post office during World War II. Staggs recalled that he baled hay around a
pond excavated by Jack Stephens. Staggs said that the fence was built before he was born and
that the fence was old even then. He testified that he always believed that the old fence was
the boundary line between the two properties.
Roy McAdams, age eighty-one, testified that he had lived in the area most of his life
and that he was familiar with the old fence. He said that the old fence had been the boundary
line between the properties of Jack Stephens and Arnold. Imogene McAdams, Roy’s wife,
-3-
CA 09-115
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 614
testified that she picked berries and cotton in the area when she was a child. She did not
know when the fence was built but said that it had been there when she was a young girl.
Ms. McAdams stated that she was aware that Stan Stephens’s father ran cattle all the way to
the old fence line.
Carolyn Fergus, one of Arnold’s daughters, testified that her father bought the property
in 1949. She said that she lived on the property as a child and that the old fence had been
there all of her life. Fergus said that her father doubted that the old fence was on the
boundary line and that she told the Browns when they bought the property that she did not
know if the fence was the legal boundary. She said that Jack Stephens knew that the old
fence was not the boundary because, when Jack Stephens dug the pond, her father told
Stephens, “Well, you dug me a pond.” Fergus said, however, that her father never moved
the fence.
Appellant Billy Joe Brown testified that he investigated the tax records and found that
he purchased 113 acres. He requisitioned the survey because he did not believe he had
enough acreage if the fence was the boundary. He said that the old fence was not continuous
in that it “zig-zagged” in places from tree to tree, it was down in other places, and in some
areas, there was no fence at all. Brown said that he telephoned Stan Stephens after the survey
and advised that he would like to erect a fence on the boundary line. Brown said that
Stephens offered to pay the taxes for the use of the property.
-4-
CA 09-115
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 614
The trial court ruled that the Stephenses proved that the old fence had become the
boundary by acquiescence. The court found that the old fence had existed for as long as
anyone could remember and that it was clear that the fence was the boundary line between
the two properties. The trial court was particularly persuaded by Fergus’s testimony that the
fence remained in place after Jack Stephens dug a pond on the disputed area, despite her
father’s belief that the fence was not the true boundary.
The Browns argue on appeal that the trial court’s findings are clearly against the
preponderance of the evidence. They contend that the evidence does not support a finding
of a boundary by acquiescence or a finding of adverse possession.
The standards governing appellate review of an equity matter are well established.
Although this court reviews equity cases de novo on the record, we do not reverse unless we
determine that the trial court’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous. Robertson v. Lees, 87
Ark. App. 172, 189 S.W.3d 463 (2004). In reviewing a trial court’s findings of fact, we give
due deference to the trial court’s superior position to determine the credibility of the
witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony. Id.
Boundaries are frequently found to exist at locations other than those shown by an
accurate survey of the premises in question and may be affected by the concepts of
acquiescence and adverse possession. Summers v. Dietsch, 41 Ark. App. 52, 849 S.W.2d 3
(1993). When adjoining landowners silently acquiesce for many years in the location of a
boundary and thus apparently consent to that line, the result is a boundary by acquiescence.
-5-
CA 09-115
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 614
McWilliams v. Schmidt, 76 Ark. App. 173, 61 S.W.3d 898 (2001).
A boundary by
acquiescence is usually represented by a fence, a turnrow, a lane, a ditch, or some other
monument tacitly accepted as visible evidence of a dividing line. Clark v. Casebier, 92 Ark.
App. 472, 215 S.W.3d 684 (2005). An express agreement to treat a fence as the dividing line
is not required. Summers, supra. Instead, a boundary line by acquiescence is inferred from the
landowners’ conduct over many years so as to imply the existence of an agreement about the
location of the boundary line. Hedger Bros. Cement & Materials, Inc. v. Stump, 69 Ark. App.
219, 10 S.W.3d 926 (2000). Acquiescence need not occur over a specific length of time,
although it must be for a long period of time. McWilliams, supra. When a boundary by
acquiescence can be inferred, a fence line, whatever its condition or location, is merely the
visible means by which the acquiesced boundary is located. Jennings v. Burford, 60 Ark. App.
27, 958 S.W.2d 12 (1997).
It is also well settled that a boundary by acquiescence may exist without the necessity
of a prior dispute. Walker v. Walker, 8 Ark. App. 297, 651 S.W.2d 116 (1983). Nor is there
any requirement of adverse usage up to a boundary fence to establish a boundary by
acquiescence. Myers v. Yingling, 372 Ark. 523, 279 S.W.3d 83 (2008). When the adjoining
landowners occupy their respective premises up to a line they mutually recognize and
acquiesce in as the boundary for a long period of time, they and their grantees are precluded
from claiming that the boundary thus recognized and acquiesced in is not the true one,
although it may not be. Clark, supra.
-6-
CA 09-115
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 614
Applying these principles to the present case, we hold that the trial court’s finding of
a boundary by acquiescence is not clearly erroneous. The fence in question has been in
existence for at least eighty years. Neighbors in the community recognized the old fence as
the boundary between the two properties. Although the parties’ predecessors in title may not
have known the location of the true boundary, it is clear that their predecessors respected the
old fence as the boundary line. Stan Stephens’s father maintained the fence and utilized the
property to the old fence for many years. One of the Stephenses’ predecessors in title even
dug a pond on the disputed area, and the fence was not dismantled or moved even though
there was a question as to who owned the property with the pond. On this record, the trial
court did not err in finding that the old fence was accepted as the boundary line for a period
of many years. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s order.
In light of our decision affirming the trial court’s finding of a boundary by
acquiescence, we need not determine whether the Stephenses also proved adverse possession.
Affirmed.
GLADWIN and GLOVER, JJ., agree.
-7-
CA 09-115
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.