Background
The Bowlin family acquired its property in 1967 and treated existing fences as its boundaries for decades. The family maintained and used the land up to the fences, including to contain livestock, brush hog, and cut hay. According to the Bowlins, neighboring owners did not challenge the fence lines until the Floyds acquired adjoining property.
The Floyds removed portions of the fencing and trees near the disputed boundary. After a bench trial, the Crawford County Circuit Court found that the southern fence line had become a boundary by acquiescence, valued the removed trees at $4,000, trebled that amount to $12,000 under Arkansas law, and ordered the Floyds to rebuild fencing along the eastern and southern boundaries.
The Court’s Holding
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of a boundary by acquiescence. Testimony that the fence had marked the property line since 1967, coupled with the Bowlins’ decades of maintenance and use up to that fixed line without objection, supported a tacit agreement and longstanding recognition of the boundary. An express agreement or earlier boundary dispute was unnecessary.
The court also upheld the $4,000 tree valuation and the treble-damages award. Owner testimony, photographs, estimates of the number and value of removed trees, posted no-trespassing signs, and Ty Floyd’s admitted removal of the trees and fencing supported the circuit court’s findings. The Floyds could not challenge the fence-rebuilding order after Ty expressed willingness to rebuild and their counsel did not object to the requested relief.
The court nevertheless remanded for the limited purpose of adding a specific legal description of the established boundary to the judgment. The existing decree did not describe the line with enough precision for it to be identified solely from the decree.
Key Takeaways
- Decades of treating a fixed fence as the dividing line can establish a boundary by acquiescence without an express agreement or prior dispute.
- Property-owner testimony and other record evidence may support a tree-damage valuation without expert testimony.
- A party that consents to or acquiesces in injunctive relief at trial cannot later challenge that relief on appeal.
- A boundary decree must contain a sufficiently specific legal description of the boundary itself.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that longstanding conduct may control a property boundary even when the accepted fence line differs from a surveyed line. It also underscores the financial risk of removing trees or fencing in a disputed area when the circumstances support intentional or reckless conduct.
For practitioners, the opinion highlights two procedural points: objections to injunctive relief must be preserved at trial, and any judgment establishing a boundary should include a complete legal description capable of identifying the line without resort to outside materials.