laches doctrine in Arkansas

1925Rowland v. McGuire, 67 Ark. 320 ; Berg v. Johnson, 139 Ark. 243 ; and Beattie v. McKinney, 160 Ark. 81 .

1910In the case of Rowland v. McGuire, 67 Ark. 320 , it is said: “The right to plead such facts (laches) as a defense is subject to the important limitation that it is confined to claims for purely equitable remedies, to which the party seeking to enforce them has no strict legal right.” In the case of McFarlane v. Grober, 70 Ark. 371 , it is said: “The doctrine of laches, invoked by the defendant, does not apply to a case where the plaintiff is not asking any equitable relief, but seeks only to enforce a plain legal title in a court of law, and where her action is not barred by the statute of lim

1910In the case of Earle Improvement Co. v. Chatfield, 81 Ark. 296 , it is said: “While it is true that the length of time during which a party may neglect to assert his rights and not be guilty of laches varies with the peculiar circumstances of each case and is subject to no arbitrary rule, like the statute of limitations, * * * yet, in the absence of some supervening equity calling for the application of the doctrine of laches, a court of chancery should and will follow the law, and not divest the owner of title by lapse of time shorter than the statutory period of limitations. * * * The paymen

1907In. those cases the full period of limitation had elapsed, but in the recent case of Earle Improvement Co. v. Chatfield, 81 Ark. 296 , we said that “while it is true that the length of time during which a party may neglect to assert rights and not be guilty of laches varies with the peculiar circumstances of each case, and is subject to no arbitrary rule like the statute of limitations, yet, in the absence of supervening equities calling for the application of the doctrine of laches, a court of chancery could and will by analogy follow the law, and not divest the owner of the title by lapse of

1947Earle Improvement Company v. Chatfield, 81 Ark. 296 , 99 S. W. 84 ; Updegraff v. Marked Tree Lumber Company, 83 Ark. 154 , 103 S. W. 696 ; Dickinson v. Norman, 165 Ark. 186 , 263 S. W. 387 .

1910In the case of Earle Improvement Co. v. Chatfield, 81 Ark. 296 , it is said: “While it is true that the length of time during which a party may neglect to assert his rights and not be guilty of laches varies with the peculiar circumstances of each case and is subject to no arbitrary rule, like the statute of limitations, * * * yet, in the absence of some supervening equity calling for the application of the doctrine of laches, a court of chancery should and will follow the law, and not divest the owner of title by lapse of time shorter than the statutory period of limitations. * * * The paymen

1943In Book v. Polk, 81 Ark. 244 , 98 S. W. 1049 , the court held that the St.

1943In Book v. Polk, 81 Ark. 244 , 98 S. W. 1049 , the court held that the St.

1923Davis v. Neal, 100 Ark. 399 ; McFarlane v. Grober, 70 Ark. 371 ; Rowland v. McGuire, 67 Ark. 320 ; Berg v. Johnson, 139 Ark. 243 .

1910In the case of Rowland v. McGuire, 67 Ark. 320 , it is said: “The right to plead such facts (laches) as a defense is subject to the important limitation that it is confined to claims for purely equitable remedies, to which the party seeking to enforce them has no strict legal right.” In the case of McFarlane v. Grober, 70 Ark. 371 , it is said: “The doctrine of laches, invoked by the defendant, does not apply to a case where the plaintiff is not asking any equitable relief, but seeks only to enforce a plain legal title in a court of law, and where her action is not barred by the statute of lim

1914Osceola Land Co. v. Henderson, 81 Ark. 432 ; Dickson v. Sentell, 83 Ark. 385 ; Segers v. Ayers, 95 Ark. 178 ; Finley v. Finley, 103 Ark. 58 ; Davis v. Harrell, 101 Ark. 230 .

1909They had notice of his title and the defects of their own. * * * “While it is true that the length of time during which a party may neglect to assert his rights and not be guilty of laches varies with the peculiar circumstances of each case, and is subject to no arbitrary rule, like the statute of limitations, * * * yet, in the absence of some supervening equity calling for the application of the doctrine of laches, a court of chancery should and will by analogy follow the law, and not divest the owner of title by lapse of time shorter than the statutory period of limitations. * * * The paymen

2023Hendrix v. Hendrix, 256 Ark. 289 , 506 S.W.2d 848 (1974); Williams v. Grayson, 224 Ark. 207 , 273 S.W.2d 844 (1954).

2023Hendrix v. Hendrix, 256 Ark. 289 , 506 S.W.2d 848 (1974); Williams v. Grayson, 224 Ark. 207 , 273 S.W.2d 844 (1954).

2023Hendrix v. Hendrix, 256 Ark. 289 , 506 S.W.2d 848 (1974); Williams v. Grayson, 224 Ark. 207 , 273 S.W.2d 844 (1954).

2023Hendrix v. Hendrix, 256 Ark. 289 , 506 S.W.2d 848 (1974); Williams v. Grayson, 224 Ark. 207 , 273 S.W.2d 844 (1954).

1955Landman v. Fincher, 196 Ark. 609 , 119 S. W. 2d 521 .

1955Landman v. Fincher, 196 Ark. 609 , 119 S. W. 2d 521 .

1952They rely upon such cases as Fordyce v. Vickers, 99 Ark. 500 , 138 S. W. 1010 ; Herget v. McLeod, 102 Ark. 59 , 143 S. W. 103 , and Carmical v. Arkansas Lumber Co., 105 Ark. 663 , 152 S. W. 286 , which hold that a true owner of land cannot be divested of his title thereto by his mere failure to pay taxes and the enhancement of the value of the land.

1952They rely upon such cases as Fordyce v. Vickers, 99 Ark. 500 , 138 S. W. 1010 ; Herget v. McLeod, 102 Ark. 59 , 143 S. W. 103 , and Carmical v. Arkansas Lumber Co., 105 Ark. 663 , 152 S. W. 286 , which hold that a true owner of land cannot be divested of his title thereto by his mere failure to pay taxes and the enhancement of the value of the land.

1944Davis v. Harrell, 101 Ark. 230 , 142 S. W. 156 ; Segers v. Ayers, 95 Ark. 178 , 128 S. W. 1045 ; Reece v. Bruce, 136 Ark. 378 , 206 S. W. 658 ; Walker v. Norton, 199 Ark. 593 , 136 S. W. 2d 315 .

1944Davis v. Harrell, 101 Ark. 230 , 142 S. W. 156 ; Segers v. Ayers, 95 Ark. 178 , 128 S. W. 1045 ; Reece v. Bruce, 136 Ark. 378 , 206 S. W. 658 ; Walker v. Norton, 199 Ark. 593 , 136 S. W. 2d 315 .

1944Davis v. Harrell, 101 Ark. 230 , 142 S. W. 156 ; Segers v. Ayers, 95 Ark. 178 , 128 S. W. 1045 ; Reece v. Bruce, 136 Ark. 378 , 206 S. W. 658 ; Walker v. Norton, 199 Ark. 593 , 136 S. W. 2d 315 .

1944Davis v. Harrell, 101 Ark. 230 , 142 S. W. 156 ; Segers v. Ayers, 95 Ark. 178 , 128 S. W. 1045 ; Reece v. Bruce, 136 Ark. 378 , 206 S. W. 658 ; Walker v. Norton, 199 Ark. 593 , 136 S. W. 2d 315 .

1925Rowland v. McGuire, 67 Ark. 320 ; Berg v. Johnson, 139 Ark. 243 ; and Beattie v. McKinney, 160 Ark. 81 .

1925Rowland v. McGuire, 67 Ark. 320 ; Berg v. Johnson, 139 Ark. 243 ; and Beattie v. McKinney, 160 Ark. 81 .

1920In Tatum v. Arkansas Lumber Co., 103 Ark. 251 , and in numerous other cases this court has said that there must be some supervening equity calling for the application of the doctrine of laches.

1913Updegraff v. Marked Tree Lumber Co., supra, and cases cited; Chancellor v. Banks, 92 Ark. 497 ; Tatum v. Arkansas Lumber Co., 103 Ark. 251 .

1914Osceola Land Co. v. Henderson, 81 Ark. 432 ; Dickson v. Sentell, 83 Ark. 385 ; Segers v. Ayers, 95 Ark. 178 ; Finley v. Finley, 103 Ark. 58 ; Davis v. Harrell, 101 Ark. 230 .

1911This principle is illustrated in the case of Dickson v. Sentell, 83 Ark. 385 .

1913Updegraff v. Marked Tree Lumber Co., supra, and cases cited; Chancellor v. Banks, 92 Ark. 497 ; Tatum v. Arkansas Lumber Co., 103 Ark. 251 .

1910In the case of Chancellor v. Banks, 92 Ark. 497 , it was held (quoting syllabus) : “A suit to remove a cloud upon the title of wild and unimproved land will not be barred bjr laches where it was brought within four years after defendant’s tax title was acquired from the State, and where plaintiff had done nothing to indicate that he had abandoned the land except that he had failed to pay the taxes during that time.” In the case at bar the plaintiffs instituted this suit within two years after defendant acquired his tax title from State, and before he expended any money in improvements on the l

2024In Padgett v. Haston, 279 Ark. 367 , 651 S.W.2d 460 (1983), the supreme court stated that in order to apply the doctrine of laches, it must be shown that there was an unreasonable delay in asserting some right, and because of the delay, the party claiming the protection of laches changed his position to his detriment so as to make it inequitable to enforce the asserted right.

2024In Padgett v. Haston, 279 Ark. 367 , 651 S.W.2d 460 (1983), the supreme court stated that in order to apply the doctrine of laches, it must be shown that there was an unreasonable delay in asserting some right, and because of the delay, the party claiming the protection of laches changed his position to his detriment so as to make it inequitable to enforce the asserted right.

2022Id.

2021The best interest of the child is the polestar in every child-custody case; all other considerations are secondary. 10 Appellant has failed to cite any cases in which our courts 7 Chitwood v. Chitwood, 92 Ark.

2021Lewis v. Lewis, 87 Ark.

2020Walker v. Hooker, 282 Ark. 61 , 667 S.W.2d 637 (1984) (citing Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 443 cmt. a (1959)). 8 We note this gift theory contradicts Lillian’s claim to have purchased the property and assume that it is made only in the alternative. 8 Lastly, Lillian alleges that William was aware of her claim to the property as early as 1999 and that his claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.

2020Walker v. Hooker, 282 Ark. 61 , 667 S.W.2d 637 (1984) (citing Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 443 cmt. a (1959)). 8 We note this gift theory contradicts Lillian’s claim to have purchased the property and assume that it is made only in the alternative. 8 Lastly, Lillian alleges that William was aware of her claim to the property as early as 1999 and that his claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.

2018Our caselaw frequently provides that "the doctrine of laches is only applicable where equitable relief is sought; where a party is only seeking to enforce a legal right ... and is not seeking equitable relief, the doctrine of laches has no application." See generally Warford v. Union Bank of Benton , 2010 Ark.

2003Laches In holding that the landowners' complaint is barred by the doctrine of laches, the majority opinion relies primarily on our decision in Richards v. Ferguson, 252 Ark. 484 , 479 S.W.2d 852 (1972).

2003Laches In holding that the landowners' complaint is barred by the doctrine of laches, the majority opinion relies primarily on our decision in Richards v. Ferguson, 252 Ark. 484 , 479 S.W.2d 852 (1972).

2003The doctrine of laches was laid out in Goforth v. Smith, 338 Ark. 65 , 991 S.W.2d 579 (1999): The doctrine of laches is based on a number of equitable principles that are premised on some detrimental change in position made in reliance upon the action or inaction of the other party.

2003The doctrine of laches was laid out in Goforth v. Smith, 338 Ark. 65 , 991 S.W.2d 579 (1999): The doctrine of laches is based on a number of equitable principles that are premised on some detrimental change in position made in reliance upon the action or inaction of the other party.