Williams et al v. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service
Filing
63
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Robert T. Dawson on December 14, 2012. (src)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
JAMES H. WILLIAMS, III and
JULIANN ELIZABETH WILLIAMS
v.
PLAINTIFFS
Case No: 6:10-cv-6023
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court following a two-day bench
trial on October 30-31, 2012, in Hot Springs, Arkansas.
Also
before the Court are the parties’ simultaneous post-trial briefs
(docs. 61-62).
Plaintiffs brought this action under the Quiet
Title Act, 28 U.S.C. §2409a (“QTA”) seeking to quiet title to
real property, described in paragraph I of their Complaint,
specifically:
A part of Wootton Division of FOREST HILLS ADDITION,
a subdivision of part of the SE 1/4 NE 1/4 of Section
28, Township 2 South, Range 19 West, more particularly
described as follows: Commencing at the SW corner of
Lot 10 of said division on the north line of North
Border Street and running east on the north line of
North Border street for 80.1 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING; thence northeasterly along the southerly
line of Forest Hills Trail for 51.8 feet to the
southerly line of said ten foot dirt road 185.0 feet;
thence South 0'0'0' East for 33.3 feet to the north
line of North Border street; thence west along said
north line to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Doc. 1, ¶1.
On December 5, 2011, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to
AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)
Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (doc. 38),
and this matter proceeded to trial before the Court.
The
following
and
constitutes
the
Court’s
findings
of
fact
conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
A. Findings of Fact
1.
Plaintiffs own Part of Lot 13, Block 193 of the Hot Springs
Reservation, which is situated on the south side of North
Border Street (platted but never built).
2.
Katrina
S.
Williams,
mother
of
Plaintiff,
James H.
Williams, III, deeded the property to Plaintiffs on June
18, 1998.
The deed was recorded on June 18, 1998, at
Volume 1805, Page 618, in the records of Garland County,
Arkansas.
3.
Katrina S. Williams and her husband, James H. Williams, Jr.
purchased the property on March 31, 1977, from Hannah
Kroll, residuary devisee of Stella M. Moler, deceased. The
deed was recorded at Book 834, Page 511-12, in the records
of Garland County, Arkansas.
4.
Stella M. Moler died on November 1, 1965, according to the
petition for probate of will and appointment of personal
representative, which was filed in the Probate Court of
Garland County, Arkansas, Case No. 10461, on November 8,
1965.
Page 2 of
AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)
15
5.
Stella M. Moler and her husband, Arthur B. Moler, purchased
the property on June 30, 1948, from Ray S. Smith, Jr.
The
deed was recorded on April 7, 1949, at Book 309, Page 516,
in the records of Garland County, Arkansas.
6.
The subject property is located on the north side of North
Border Street and is a part of the Wootton Division of
Forest
Hills
Addition
to
Hot
Springs
National
Park,
Arkansas (Wootton Division).
7.
On or about February 25, 1927, W.T. Wootton and Emaline
Whittington Wootton, his wife, filed a Bill of Assurance
for the Wootton Division with attached plat.
The Bill of
Assurance was recorded at Volume 160, Page 175, in the
records of Garland County, Arkansas.
The plat was also
recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 32 in the records of Garland
County, Arkansas.
The plat recorded along with the Bill of
Assurance added a ten-foot strip of land to the north of
the existing 30-foot North Border Street right of way in
order for the platted Emma Jean Road and Westcott Heights
right of ways to be 40 feet in width where they converged
with the North Border Street right of way to form the
southern border of Wootton Division.
8.
On March 19, 1946, Emaline W. Wootton, deeded to Euclid M.
Smith and Madge Wootton Smith (Smiths) Lots 9 and 10 of the
Wootton Division, as well as part of Lot 5 in Block 7 of
Page 3 of
AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)
15
Conway Heights Subdivision.
The deed was recorded March
20, 1946, at Volume 270, Page 341-42 in the records of
Garland County, Arkansas.
9.
On December 4, 1956, Lawrence Westbrook and Martha Wootton
Westbrook deeded to the Smiths part of Lots 6, 7 and 12,
all of Lots 8, 11, 22, 23 and 24 of the Wootton Division
and acreage located on the South side of said Forest Hills
Subdivision bordered by Lots 26, 22, 23 and 24.
The deed
was recorded December 14, 1956 at Volume 431, Pages 171-72
in the records of Garland County, Arkansas.
10.
On April 7, 1967, the Smiths deeded to the City of Hot
Springs, Arkansas .505 acres in Lot 24, a 20 foot easement
for installation of water mains in Lots 9 and 11, and a 50foot easement for an access road in Lots 11 and 24.
The
deed was recorded April 19, 1967, at Volume 602, Pages 30910 in the records of Garland County, Arkansas.
11.
On December 14, 1967, Dr. Euclid M. Smith, as the owner of
Lots 9, 10 and 11 of Wootton Division, petitioned the City
of Hot Springs to close and abandon that portion of Emma
Jean Road because the road was straightened.
attached
to
the
petition
depicts
the
area
The plat
west
and
southwesterly in dispute in this matter as a portion to be
vacated by the City.
12.
On March 4, 1968, by Ordinance No. 2953 the City of Hot
Page 4 of
AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)
15
Springs
vacated
and
abandoned
to
the
Smiths
all
that
portion of a street known as “Emma Jean Road” described as
follows: “All that portion of Emma Jean Road lying north of
the north line of North Border Street or Forest Hills Road
and south or southeast of Lots 9 and 10 of Wootton Division
of Forest Hills Addition, a subdivision of part of the
SE1/4 NE1/4 of Section 28, Twp. 2S, R. 19W, Garland County,
Arkansas.”
13.
Ordinance No. 2953 was subsequently filed on September 5,
1973 at Volume 735, Pages 04-05 in the records of Garland
County,
Arkansas.
As
noted
in
the
Ordinance,
“the
petitioner, Dr. Euclid M. Smith, was the sole and only
owner of property abutting on the portion of the street as
hereinabove set forth...”
14.
On December 30, 1967, Euclid M. Smith and Madge Wootton
Smith executed a Dedication Deed to the City of Hot Springs
for the purpose of dedicating the realigned and relocated
portion of Emma Jean Road to the City of Hot Springs.
15.
On
March
18,
1968,
the
City
of
Hot
Springs
adopted
Resolution No. 845 accepting the Smith Dedication Deed.
A
copy of the Dedication Deed and Plat are attached to the
Resolution. Neither the Resolution nor the Dedication Deed
was ever filed in the records of Garland County, Arkansas.
16.
Euclid M. Smith and Madge Wootton Smith died thereafter.
Page 5 of
AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)
15
Madge Wootton Smith’s will was opened on May 1, 1973,
Garland County Probate No. 13,320.
17.
The Order of Distribution entered on July 20, 1973 with
respect
to
Madge
Wootton
Smith’s
estate
conveyed
two
parcels of land to the daughters of Madge Wootton Smith:
Gale Smith McFarlin and Lee Smith Humphreys, who took title
as Tenants in Common.
Those two parcels were described as
follows in the Order of Distribution: (A) “Lots 9 & 10 of
Wootton’s Subdivision of Forest Hills Addition to Hot
Springs National Park, Garland County, Arkansas (133 Forest
Hills Road)”; (B) “A part of the SE1/4 of the NE1/4 of
Section 28, Township 2 South, Range 19 West, being also a
part of Wootton’s Subdivision of Forest Hills Addition to
the City of Hot Springs, Garland County, Arkansas.
18.
On
September
14,
1973,
the
Smiths’
heirs,
Gale
Smith
McFarlin and Lee Smith Humphreys, deeded Lots 9 and 10 of
Wootton Division and part of Lot 5 of Block 7 of Conway
Heights Subdivision to Remlo Enterprises, Inc.
The deed
was recorded on September 24, 1973, at Volume 736, Pages
229-30, in the records of Garland County, Arkansas.
19.
Subsequently, on August 30, 1974, the Smith heirs deeded
Lots 11, 22 and 23 and Part of Lots 12 and 24 of the
Wootton Division to Remlo Enterprises, Inc.
The deed was
recorded on August 20, 1974, at Volume 759, Pages 314-16,
Page 6 of
AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)
15
in the records of Garland County, Arkansas.
Neither deed
addressed the property vacated by Ordinance No. 2953.
20.
On June 28, 1985, Fred Russell Loyd and Mary Octavia Loyd
deeded part of Lot 10 of the Wootton Division containing
.65 acres to Emogene T. Loyd.
The deed was recorded on
August 6, 1985, at Volume 1127, Pages 324-25, in the
records of Garland County, Arkansas.
21.
Remlo Enterprises subsequently deeded all of Lots 9, 11, 22
and 23, the remaining part of Lot 10, and part of Lots 12
and 24 of the Wootton Division to Emogene Loyd and Fred R.
Loyd, on March 11, 1986.
The deed was recorded on March
13, 1986 at Volume 1161, Pages 758-760 in the records of
Garland County, Arkansas.
22.
In 1986, the United States purchased two parcels of land in
the Wootton Division of Forest Hills Addition, from Fred R.
Loyd, Emogene T. Loyd and Russell O. Loyd by Warranty Deeds
Lots 11, 22 and 23, and Parts of Lots 12 and 24, containing
approximately 9.30 acres, known as NPS Tract No. 05-130,
was purchased on May 21, 1986.
The deed was recorded on
May 22, 1986 at Volume 1171, Pages 50-53, in the records of
Garland County, Arkansas.
A Correction Warranty Deed for
NPS Tract No. 05-130 was executed by the Loyds on March 27,
1990 and filed on March 30, 1990 in Volume 1334, Pages 24447.
Page 7 of
AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)
15
23.
Lot 9 and part of Lot 10, containing approximately 1.7
acres, known as NPS Tract No. 05-157, was purchased on June
6, 1986.
The deed reserved the right of use and occupancy
of the property for 20 years and was recorded on June 9,
1986, at Volume 1173, Pages 338-344, in the records of
Garland County, Arkansas.
24.
On
May
21,
Department
1986,
of
Hugh
Interior,
Crenshaw,
an
completed
a
employee
of
certificate
the
of
possession and inspection stating he was fully informed of
the boundaries of Tract 05-130, and no other person had any
outstanding right to possession of that property.
25.
Plaintiff James Williams and his parents moved near 130
Forest Hills Trail in 1953, and he would visit the Molers
who lived there at that time.
Katrina Williams testified
that around 1955, there was a fence around the property
which she eventually purchased in 1977, believing she
purchased everything within the fence.
26.
Plaintiff James Williams testified he remembered the fence
posts being there in 1978 after his parents purchased the
property, and Mrs. Williams testified she rebuilt the
existing fence from remaining remnants of the original
fence after moving there in 1994.
27.
Mr. Loyd testified he remembered the fence being there in
1973 and that it had been there for many years.
Page 8 of
AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)
15
Mr. Loyd
considered it to be the boundary of the Williams’ property
and that he did not consider anything within the fence to
be part of the conveyance from the Smith heirs to him.
Mr.
Loyd further testified he pointed out the fence line to an
agent from the National Park Service, and that he never
owned any of the vacated portion of Emma Jean Road, only
Lot 11.
28.
On March 23, 2006, the Loyds executed a Quitclaim Deed to
the United States releasing the remaining term of the
reserved 20-year right of use and occupancy they reserved
in Lots 9 and 10.
The Quitclaim Deed was recorded on April
7, 2006, at Book 2679, Pages 0762-0764, in the records of
Garland County, Arkansas.
29.
On March 20, 2000, Plaintiffs obtained a Building Permit to
construct
a
potting
shed
(the
“Opera
House”)
and,
subsequently, constructed the shed.
30.
Defendant contracted with John Thornton of B&F Engineering,
Inc. for a land survey, dated November 2007, of the area in
question.
31.
The
survey
completed
by
John
Thornton
indicated
that
Plaintiffs’ improvements were located outside their own
property boundaries and encroaching upon Defendant’s lands
and on the North Border Street right of way.
32.
John
Thornton
testified
that
Page 9 of
AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)
all
15
of
the
property
in
Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint lying North of the
original right of way on North Border Street as platted,
would be encroaching upon Defendant’s property. This would
include 36.3 feet of the planter, 81.3 feet of the fence,
that part of ten feet by 19.8 feet potting shed outside of
the North Border Street right of way and that 18 feet of
fenced
area
platted.
that
is
located
in
Lot
11
as
originally
In addition, Thornton testified the potting shed
and 9 feet of the fence are in the Westcott Heights right
of way, except the Southwest triangle of the shed which
lies in the platted North Border Street right of way.
Thornton testified that the vacated portion of Emma Jean
Road
as
described
in
Ordinance
2953,
in
his
opinion,
conveyed to Remlo Enterprises.
33.
According
to
Steve
Hankins
who
surveyed
the
land
for
Plaintiffs, there is no encroachment on Defendant’s land as
Defendant never gained title to the land in question.
Hankins testified the property reverted back to the Smiths
and, subsequently, the Smith heirs when the City vacated
Emma
Jean
Road.
In
December
2011,
the
Smith
heirs,
pursuant to a Quitclaim Deed, granted to Plaintiffs:
ALL THAT PORTION OF EMMA JEAN ROAD LYING NORTH OF THE
NORTH LINE OF NORTH BORDER STREET OR FOREST HILLS ROAD
AND SOUTH OR SOUTHEAST OF LOTS 9 AND 10 OF WOOTTON
DIVISION OF FOREST HILLS ADDITION, A SUBDIVISION OF A
PART OF THE SE1/4 NE1/4 OF SECTION 28, TWP. 2S, R.
19W, GARLAND COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
Page 10 of
AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)
15
B. Conclusions of Law
1.
This Court has jurisdiction under the Quiet Title Act, as
Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to know of the claim of the
United States prior to 2007 when their ownership was called
into question, not in 1986 as Defendant claims.
2.
These lands were abandoned and vacated by the City of Hot
Springs by way of its adoption of Ordinance 2953.
Further,
the heirs of Madge Wootton Smith granted Plaintiffs record
legal title to the lands.
3.
Pursuant to Arkansas law, the grantee takes to the center
of an abandoned easement only when the grantor explicitly
expresses that intention. Pyron v. Blanscet, 218 Ark. 696,
697-98, 238 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Ark. 1951) citing City of
Fordyce v. Hampton, 179 Ark. 705, 17 S.W.2d 869 (Ark.
1929).
Steve Hankins testified the vacated portion of Emma
Jean Road remained with the Smith heirs, because there was
no express verbiage when deeded to Remlo.
When the Smith
heirs deeded lots 9-11, to Remlo, the conveyance was only
to the right of way line, not to the center of the road of
the vacated portion adjoining Lot 11.
Therefore, they held
title to that portion until granting it to Plaintiffs in
December 2011.
4.
Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs gained record legal
title to the land in question.
Page 11 of
AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)
15
5.
Alternatively, the boundary between Plaintiff’s property
and Lot 11 was established by acquiescence prior to any
conveyance to the United States.
6.
Based on testimony from previous property owners, such as
Mr. Loyd and Ms. Williams, the property in question was
deemed by acquiescence to be part of the Williams’ property
prior to any alleged interest by Defendant.
In Rabjohn v.
Ashcraft, 252 Ark. 565, 480 S.W.2d 138 (1972) the Arkansas
Supreme Court set out the principles governing the law of
boundary lines by agreement and by acquiescence:
The proprietors of adjacent lands may establish a
binding arbitrary boundary line, by agreement, which
may be parol. Such an agreement becomes binding if
the location of the true line is in doubt or dispute,
and the parties enter into possession pursuant to it,
even though their possession does not extend for the
full statutory period of seven years. The agreement
need not be express, but it may be inferred from longcontinued acquiescence of the parties and occupation
according to such line, or from other actions of the
parties. Quite apart from the inference of some parol
agreement, a boundary may also be established by
adjoining owners by acquiescence in a clearly
established line as the boundary over a period in
excess of seven years, whether preceded by a dispute
or uncertainty as to the line or not and without the
necessity of adverse user to the line.
Whenever
adjoining landowners tacitly accept a fence line or
other monument as the visible evidence of their
dividing line and thus apparently consent to that
line, it becomes the boundary by acquiescence. When
the adjoining owners occupy their respective premises
up to the line they mutually recognize and acquiesce
in as the boundary for a long period of time, they and
their grantees are precluded from claiming that the
boundary thus recognized and acquiesced in is not the
true one, although it may not be. Id. at 570-71, 480
S.W.2d at 141 (internal citations omitted).
Page 12 of
AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)
15
7.
Loyd testified there was a fence in 1973 in the disputed
area that had been there for many years, and he considered
it to be the boundary of the Williams’ property.
Loyd did
not consider it part of the conveyance from the Smith heirs
to him.
Loyd further testified he pointed out the fence to
an agent of the National Park Service, and he believed he
never owned the vacated portion of Emma Jean Road, only to
the
lot
lines.
Therefore,
the
boundary
was
set
by
acquiescence, and Loyd could not have conveyed the disputed
portion to Defendant, regardless of his intent.
8.
Ms.
Williams
testified
there
was
a
fence
around
the
property which she purchased from Ms. Kroll in 1977, and it
was her belief she purchased everything within the fence.
Julie Williams testified there were remnants of the old
fence that she used to rebuild the fence after obtaining
the property from Ms. Williams.
James Williams further
testified regarding the old fence posts that remained in
1978.
9.
None of the Opera House is located in the vacated Westcott
Road right of way, but is within the portion of Emma Jean
Road lying north of the north line of North Border Street
or Forest Hills Road and south or southeast of Lots 9 and
10 of Wootton Division that was vacated by Ordinance No.
2953 of the City of Hot Springs.
Page 13 of
AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)
15
10.
As the Court finds Plaintiffs possess record legal title to
the disputed property, it is not necessary to address and
analyze
the
merits
of
Plaintiffs’
alternative
adverse
possession claim.
C.
Conclusion
The Court recognizes there was conflicting testimony in
this case, including but not limited to, how and why this
particular dispute arose and culminated into the case at bar.
However,
it
credibility.
is
for
the
Court
to
determine
matters
of
While the Court is sympathetic with Defendant’s
charge to conserve and protect its lands, including the Hot
Springs
National
Park,
for
the
enjoyment
of
all
American
citizens, the property in question does not belong to the
defendant.
Boundary line disputes often become emotional and, many
times, confrontational, between the litigants.
Unfortunately,
this case reflects the norm in these types of cases.
All of the
parties to this litigation, believing they are correct in their
respective assertions, exercised little in the way of discretion
in presenting and making known their contentions. Regardless of
any
affronts
imagined,
by
this
and
case
between
remains
the
only
parties
a
whether
boundary
line
real
or
dispute
governed by only the laws of real property.
Plaintiffs have proven they hold record legal title to the
Page 14 of
AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)
15
disputed
property
as
depicted
in
Plaintiff’s
Exhibit
28.
Defendant never acquired title to the property as Loyd’s deed
did not convey the vacated portion of Emma Jean Road.
That land
remained with the Smith heirs who ultimately conveyed it to
Plaintiffs by quitclaim deeds.
Alternatively, Defendant never
acquired the land as it became part of the Williams’ property by
acquiescence prior to any conveyance to Defendant.
This was a
close case, and counsel represented their respective parties
very well.
Accordingly, the Court finds all parties are to bear
their own fees and costs.
The parties have sixty days to
appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of December, 2012.
/s/ Robert T. Dawson
Honorable Robert T. Dawson
United States District Judge
Page 15 of
AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)
15
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?