Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagesattorneystatuteappealtrialtreble damages

damagesattorneyappealtrialtestimonyeasementappellantappelleetreble damages

Related Cases

Schrader v. Schrader, 81 Ark. App. 343, 101 S.W.3d 873

Facts

Ronald Schrader filed a quiet-title action against his brothers, Bruce and Mary Schrader, regarding a disputed property line. The brothers had lived on the property as children and later purchased it from their grandfather. A fence installed by their grandfather in the 1930s marked the boundary, but Ronald claimed it was not on the actual property line. Bruce and Mary counterclaimed that they had adversely possessed the disputed land, citing their maintenance of the property and cultivation of crops.

On May 29, 1998, the appellant, Ronald Schrader, filed a quiet-title action against property owners on four sides of his eighty-acre tract of land. Appellees own property that adjoins the west side of appellant's land. Ronald Schrader and Bruce Schrader lived on the property, which is now owned by appellees, as children. In 1976, appellees bought the property from Ronald Schrader and Bruce Schrader's grandfather, who had owned it since 1928.

Issue

Did the trial court err in finding that Bruce and Mary Schrader adversely possessed the disputed property, awarding them treble damages, and granting attorney's fees?

On appeal, appellant claims that the trial court erred (1) in ruling that appellees acquired the land in question via adverse possession, (2) in awarding appellees treble damages, and (3) in awarding appellees attorney's fees.

Rule

To establish adverse possession, a claimant must have actual or constructive possession of the property and meet the statutory requirements, including color of title and payment of taxes, unless the rights to the property vested before the statute's amendment.

In order for a claimant to establish title by actual adverse possession under the new law, the claimant must prove color of title and payment of taxes in addition to all of the elements necessary under existing adverse possession law in the state of Arkansas.

Analysis

The court determined that Bruce and Mary had established their claim of adverse possession prior to the 1995 amendment to the statute, which meant they were not required to prove payment of taxes. The evidence presented, including the long-standing fence and their use of the land, supported their claim. The court also found sufficient evidence for the award of treble damages due to Ronald's deliberate destruction of their property.

We hold that the law enacted in 1995 does not apply in this case. There is no dispute that appellees bought their land in 1976. The testimony presented below established that appellees began adversely possessing the disputed property at that time. On the anniversary of the seventh year, appellees' rights to the property vested.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the findings of adverse possession and the awards for damages and attorney's fees were supported by the evidence.

We cannot say that the chancellor clearly erred in making his award.

Who won?

Bruce and Mary Schrader prevailed in the case because the court found they had established adverse possession of the disputed property and were entitled to damages for Ronald's actions.

The trial court found that appellees had adversely possessed the disputed property and granted appellant an easement by necessity on a lane leading to his property.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Stowe v. Smith, 184 Conn. 194, 441 A.2d 81

Walker v. Lawson, 526 N.E.2d 968

In re Marriage of Strobel, 585 S.W.3d 862

Bowes v. Cannon, 50 Colo. 262, 116 P. 336

Page v. Gillett, 47 Colo. 289, 107 P. 290