Ark. Code Ann. § 18-60-508 (2020)

Case Notes

Attack on Decree.

Decree of confirmation was void on direct attack at the instance of one who had paid the taxes on the land for the statutory period preceding such confirmation and who was not made a defendant and served with process in the action. Quertermous v. Bilby, 144 Ark. 98, 221 S.W. 856 (1920); Grayling Lumber Co. v. Tillar, 162 Ark. 221, 258 S.W. 132 (1924).

A decree confirming a title to land is conclusive on collateral attack against all persons, whether named as parties or not and whether life tenants or remaindermen, except for jurisdictional defects shown on the record. Champion v. Williams, 165 Ark. 328, 264 S.W. 972 (1924).

Action to set aside and vacate decree of confirmation of title brought by claimants who had paid taxes on the property had not been made parties defendant to quiet title action was a direct attack on the decree, not an impermissible collateral attack. Hall v. Blanford, 254 Ark. 590, 494 S.W.2d 714 (1973).

Summary judgment was improperly granted to an operator and a lessee as they failed to show evidence of entitlement to litigate the validity of a 1976 quiet-title decree based on potential claimants, thus, the limitations in § 18-60-510 applied, and a collateral attack was improper since there were no jurisdictional defects; the operator and the lessee failed to show how any potential claimant came within the reach of subsection (b) of this section as they did not identify any individual who they claimed was seeking royalties, or show that a predecessor in title adverse to the owners was known, but not named in the 1976 action. Verkamp v. Floyd E. Sagely Props., 96 Ark. App. 61, 238 S.W.3d 619 (2006).

Dower.

A decree confirming a title purchased at a mortgage foreclosure sale will not preclude the widow of the mortgagor from suing for dower in the mortgaged land if her right to dower was not put in issue in the foreclosure suit and she was not made a party to the confirmation proceeding. Fourche River Lumber Co. v. Walker, 96 Ark. 540, 132 S.W. 451 (1910).

Persons Not Bound.

Where title is sought to be confirmed under general notice by publication, a decree shall not bar or affect the rights of any person who was an adverse occupant of the land at the time the petition was filed. Hargis v. Lawrence, 135 Ark. 321, 204 S.W. 755 (1918).

Where predecessor of plaintiff in title paid taxes on land for required period prior to filing of confirmation petition by owners of tax title, and predecessor was not made a party to the confirmation proceeding, the confirmation decree was not binding on plaintiff. Hensley v. Phillips, 215 Ark. 543, 221 S.W.2d 412 (1949).

Title cannot be quieted on constructive service against a defendant who had paid taxes on the disputed land for the statutory period. Ingram v. Luther, 244 Ark. 260, 424 S.W.2d 546 (1968).

Property Affected.

Decree confirming sale of several tracts was held to be a confirmation of each tract included therein. Fiddyment v. Bateman, 97 Ark. 76, 133 S.W. 192 (1910).

Void Tax Deed.

Tax deed having a void description will not be confirmed. Rucker v. Arkansas Land & Timber Co., 128 Ark. 180, 194 S.W. 21 (1917).

Cited: Towson v. Denson, 74 Ark. 302, 86 S.W. 661 (1905); Drinkwater v. Crist, 83 Ark. 293, 103 S.W. 733 (1907); Ball v. Messmore, 226 Ark. 256, 289 S.W.2d 183 (1956).