Fulkerson v. Van Buren
961 S.W.2d 780 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish title by adverse possession, the claimant's possession must be hostile, meaning it is under a claim of right and not in recognition of or subservience to the true owner's superior title. A claimant's acknowledgment of the true owner's title during the statutory period negates the requisite hostile intent.
Facts:
- Floyd H. Fulkerson held legal title to a 4.5-acre parcel of land since December 1949.
- In 1985, the congregation of the Progressive Church, Inc. began using a church building on Fulkerson's property without his permission.
- Over the next several years, the congregation made significant improvements to the church building and the surrounding land.
- Around 1990, the church's pastor, Sylvester Van Burén, began negotiations with Fulkerson to lease the property, but the parties failed to reach an agreement.
- Reverend Van Burén testified that around 1990-1991, he realized the church did not have a deed and, after researching the matter, 'accepted that as a fact' that Fulkerson held legal title.
- In November 1994, Fulkerson sent a letter demanding the church vacate the property, which the church refused to do.
Procedural Posture:
- Floyd H. Fulkerson filed a complaint in Pulaski County Circuit Court (the trial court) seeking to eject the Progressive Church from his property.
- The Progressive Church filed a counterclaim asserting it owned the property through adverse possession and requested the court to quiet title in its name.
- Following a trial, the circuit court found in favor of the Progressive Church, entering a judgment that it owned the land by adverse possession.
- Fulkerson, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Arkansas Court of Appeals (the intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the Progressive Church establish the requisite 'hostile' intent to adversely possess land owned by Fulkerson when its pastor acknowledged Fulkerson's legal title during the statutory seven-year period?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge John E. Jennings
No. The Progressive Church did not establish the requisite hostile intent because its possession was not unequivocally adverse for the entire statutory period. The intention to hold adversely must be clear, distinct, and unequivocal. Reverend Van Burén's testimony revealed that the church was unsure of its interest in the land and that he explicitly recognized Fulkerson's superior title around 1990 by attempting to secure a quitclaim deed or lease and by accepting the fact of Fulkerson's ownership. The pastor's admission that the church only decided to claim the land adversely in 1994 or 1995, after eviction was threatened, demonstrates that the hostile intent was not maintained for the required seven years. Therefore, the church's possession was subservient to, rather than hostile toward, the true owner's title for part of the statutory period.
Dissenting - Judge Margaret Meads
Yes. The Progressive Church's actions demonstrated the necessary hostile intent to adversely possess the land, and the trial court's finding should be affirmed. The church's extensive, open, and continuous use and improvement of the property from 1985 established possession under a claim of right. The term 'hostile' does not require ill will, but rather possession that is inconsistent with the owner's rights. The church's steadfast refusal to leave or negotiate a lease, even after being notified of Fulkerson's title, was a repudiation of his ownership, not a recognition of it. The dissent argues that the seven-year period of adverse possession was likely completed before Fulkerson even asserted his ownership in 1992.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'hostile' intent element of adverse possession, emphasizing that the possessor's subjective state of mind and actions demonstrating recognition of the owner's title are critical. The ruling establishes that overt acts acknowledging the true owner's superior title, such as attempting to negotiate a lease, can defeat a claim for adverse possession by breaking the continuous period of hostile intent. This holding makes it more difficult for possessors to claim title if they have had communications with the titleholder that suggest their possession is permissive or subservient. Future claimants must demonstrate a consistent, unequivocal intent to hold the property as their own, free from any acknowledgment of another's superior ownership.
