Smith v. Stewart
662 S.W.2d 202, 1983 Ark. App. LEXIS 932, 10 Ark. App. 201 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a person mistakenly erects a permanent improvement upon the land of another, the landowner is entitled to a mandatory injunction for the removal of the structure; a court of equity cannot compel the landowner to sell the land or purchase the improvement.
Facts:
- Appellants, California residents, and appellees, Chicago residents, owned adjoining parcels of land in Arkansas.
- In 1975, appellees hired a surveyor who, based on misinformation from a relative, incorrectly surveyed their property line.
- As a result of the erroneous survey, appellees' property line was shown to extend onto 1.86 acres of land owned by appellants.
- Relying on a stake left from this incorrect survey, appellees constructed a brick veneer house entirely on appellants' property.
- The surveyor later discovered the error and resurveyed the property correctly.
- The house constructed by appellees cannot be moved without being completely destroyed.
- Upon discovering the house on their land, appellants initiated a lawsuit.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellants filed suit against appellees in Arkansas chancery court (the trial court).
- Appellants sought a mandatory injunction to compel removal of the house, or alternatively, confirmation of title or damages.
- Appellees filed a counterclaim seeking damages under the Arkansas Betterment Statutes and for unjust enrichment.
- The trial court found appellees built in good faith but lacked color of title, making the Betterment Statutes inapplicable.
- The trial court entered an alternative judgment, giving appellants the option to buy the house for $43,180, or, failing that, compelling them to sell the 1.86 acres to appellees for a set price plus damages.
- Appellants, the original plaintiffs, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court of equity have the authority to compel a landowner to either purchase a house mistakenly built on their property or sell the land to the mistaken improver, rather than ordering the removal of the encroaching structure?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Tom Glaze
No. A court cannot compel a landowner to sell their land or pay for an improvement mistakenly built upon it; the established rule in Arkansas entitles the landowner to the removal of the encroachment. The trial court erred by attempting to fashion an equitable remedy that is contrary to Arkansas precedent. While some states have adopted a more lenient rule that balances the hardships, Arkansas law follows a stricter approach rooted in common law property rights, which has been modified by statute and case law only to allow the mistaken improver the right to remove the structure if it can be done without substantial damage to the land. The court cited a long line of cases, including Dendy v. Greater Damascus Baptist Church, where mandatory injunctions requiring removal were upheld. Therefore, the trial court's decree forcing a choice between a sale of the land or purchase of the house was improper and must be reversed.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Arkansas's commitment to a strong, traditional view of property rights over a more flexible 'relative hardship' doctrine used in other jurisdictions. It clarifies that a landowner's right to have their property free from encroachment is paramount, even when the encroachment was made in good faith and its removal would cause significant financial loss to the mistaken improver. The ruling solidifies the precedent that the primary remedy for such encroachments is removal, not a forced sale or judicially mandated compensation. This provides a clear, albeit strict, rule for future cases, prioritizing the landowner's title over the mistaken improver's investment.
