adverse claim in Arkansas

1998There must be a “distinct and positive assertion ... of a right hostile to the owner.” Harper v. Hannibal, 241 Ark. 508 , 408 S.W.2d 591 (1966).

1998There must be a “distinct and positive assertion ... of a right hostile to the owner.” Harper v. Hannibal, 241 Ark. 508 , 408 S.W.2d 591 (1966).

2024Owners Ass’n of Foxcroft Woods v. Foxglen, 346 Ark. 354 , 57 S.W.3d 187 (2001); Stone v. Halliburton, 244 Ark. 392 , 425 S.W.2d 325 (1968).

2024Owners Ass’n of Foxcroft Woods v. Foxglen, 346 Ark. 354 , 57 S.W.3d 187 (2001); Stone v. Halliburton, 244 Ark. 392 , 425 S.W.2d 325 (1968).

1971In the recent case of Stone v. Halliburton, 244 Ark. 392 , 425 S. W. 2d 325 (1968), we restated familiar rules that I consider to be controlling in the case at bar: Use which is permissive in its inception can never ripen into an adverse or hostile right no matter how long continued unless the statutory period has elapsed after notice of the adverse claim has been brought home to the owner.

1971In the recent case of Stone v. Halliburton, 244 Ark. 392 , 425 S. W. 2d 325 (1968), we restated familiar rules that I consider to be controlling in the case at bar: Use which is permissive in its inception can never ripen into an adverse or hostile right no matter how long continued unless the statutory period has elapsed after notice of the adverse claim has been brought home to the owner.

1958“Possession which is so open, visible, and notorious as to give the owner constructive notice of an adverse claim need not be manifested in any particular manner; but there must be such physical evidence thereof as reasonably to indicate to the owner, if he visits the premises and is a man of ordinary prudence, that a claim of ownership adverse to his is being asserted.” Terral v. Brooks, 194 Ark. 311 , 108 S. W. 2d 489 .

1958“Possession which is so open, visible, and notorious as to give the owner constructive notice of an adverse claim need not be manifested in any particular manner; but there must be such physical evidence thereof as reasonably to indicate to the owner, if he visits the premises and is a man of ordinary prudence, that a claim of ownership adverse to his is being asserted.” Terral v. Brooks, 194 Ark. 311 , 108 S. W. 2d 489 .

2025Carson, 354 Ark. 621, 128 S.W.3d 423.

2025Carson, 354 Ark. 621, 128 S.W.3d 423.

2020Id.

2018Id.

2009Id.

2005Id.

1990See Hirsch, supra; Ueltzen, supra; Linebarger v. Late, 214 Ark. 278 , 216 S.W.2d 56 (1948).

1990See Hirsch, supra; Ueltzen, supra; Linebarger v. Late, 214 Ark. 278 , 216 S.W.2d 56 (1948).

1979Griffin v. Solomon, 235 Ark. 909 , 362 S.W. 2d 707 .

1979Griffin v. Solomon, 235 Ark. 909 , 362 S.W. 2d 707 .

1947Possession which is so open, visible, and notorious as to give the owner constructive notice of an adverse claim need not be manifested in any particular manner; but there must be such physical evidence thereof as reasonably to indicate to the owner, if he visits the premises and is a man of ordinary prudence, that a claim of ownership adverse to his is being asserted.” The case of Culver v. Gillian, 160 Ark. 397 , 254 S. W. 681 , involved the claim of title by adverse possession where the claimant was without color of title.

1947Possession which is so open, visible, and notorious as to give the owner constructive notice of an adverse claim need not be manifested in any particular manner; but there must be such physical evidence thereof as reasonably to indicate to the owner, if he visits the premises and is a man of ordinary prudence, that a claim of ownership adverse to his is being asserted.” The case of Culver v. Gillian, 160 Ark. 397 , 254 S. W. 681 , involved the claim of title by adverse possession where the claimant was without color of title.

2019Id.

2019Id. ; see also Ark.

2015Reynolds v. GFM, LLC, 2013 Ark.

2012Id.

2011The Johnson court noted that it had previously “rejected the notion that it was necessary in all cases that persons claiming a prescriptive easement must openly communicate their intention to use the road adversely before permissive use can ripen into an adverse right and recognized that the length of time and the circumstances under which the roadway was opened and used are sufficient to establish an adverse claim, when those circumstances indicate that the true owner knew or should have known that the road was being used adversely.” Id.

2008Id.

2008Bobo v. Jones, 364 Ark. 564 , 222 S.W.3d 197 (2006); Manitowoc Remanufacturing, Inc. v. Vocque, 307 Ark. 271 , 819 S.W.2d 275 (1991).

2008Bobo v. Jones, 364 Ark. 564 , 222 S.W.3d 197 (2006); Manitowoc Remanufacturing, Inc. v. Vocque, 307 Ark. 271 , 819 S.W.2d 275 (1991).

2001Id.

1996See, e.g., Manitowoc, supra; Burdess v. Arkansas Power & Light, 268 Ark. 901 , 597 S.W.2d 828 (1980); Wisdom v. Thomas, 253 Ark. 32 , 484 S.W.2d 348 (1972); Harper v. Hannibal, 241 Ark. 508 , 408 S.W.2d 591 (1966); St.

1996See, e.g., Manitowoc, supra; Burdess v. Arkansas Power & Light, 268 Ark. 901 , 597 S.W.2d 828 (1980); Wisdom v. Thomas, 253 Ark. 32 , 484 S.W.2d 348 (1972); Harper v. Hannibal, 241 Ark. 508 , 408 S.W.2d 591 (1966); St.

1996See, e.g., Manitowoc, supra; Burdess v. Arkansas Power & Light, 268 Ark. 901 , 597 S.W.2d 828 (1980); Wisdom v. Thomas, 253 Ark. 32 , 484 S.W.2d 348 (1972); Harper v. Hannibal, 241 Ark. 508 , 408 S.W.2d 591 (1966); St.

1996See, e.g., Manitowoc, supra; Burdess v. Arkansas Power & Light, 268 Ark. 901 , 597 S.W.2d 828 (1980); Wisdom v. Thomas, 253 Ark. 32 , 484 S.W.2d 348 (1972); Harper v. Hannibal, 241 Ark. 508 , 408 S.W.2d 591 (1966); St.

1996Relying on Fullenwider v. Kitchens, supra, and McGill v. Miller, supra, we recognized that the length of time and the circumstances under which the roadway was opened and used is sufficient to establish an adverse claim, when those circumstances indicate that the true owner knew or should have known that the road was being used adversely.

1987McPherson v. McPherson, 258 Ark. 257 , 523 S.W.2d 623 (1975).

1987McPherson v. McPherson, 258 Ark. 257 , 523 S.W.2d 623 (1975).

1983Suffice it to say, however, that the evidence is not unlike the proof set out in Palmer v. Sanders, 240 Ark. 859 , 402 S.W.2d 680 (1966), which was held insufficient to establish an adverse claim against cotenants.

1983Suffice it to say, however, that the evidence is not unlike the proof set out in Palmer v. Sanders, 240 Ark. 859 , 402 S.W.2d 680 (1966), which was held insufficient to establish an adverse claim against cotenants.

1979In Dodson v. Muldrew, 239 Ark. 202 , 388 S.W. 2d 90 (1965), the court stated that notorious acts of an unequivocal nature were required to give notice to co-tenants of an adverse claim.

1979In Dodson v. Muldrew, 239 Ark. 202 , 388 S.W. 2d 90 (1965), the court stated that notorious acts of an unequivocal nature were required to give notice to co-tenants of an adverse claim.