The case of Fulkerson v Van Buren serves as a critical reminder of the stringent requirements for adverse possession under Arkansas law. While the Progressive Church made significant improvements to the property and maintained physical possession, their failure to demonstrate clear and hostile intent for the full statutory period resulted in the denial of their adverse possession claim. The court’s decision underscores the importance of unequivocal evidence in overcoming the presumption of subservience to the true owner.
Facts of Fulkerson v Van Buren
The 4.5-acre parcel of land, located near Scott, Arkansas, is irregularly shaped with eleven sides. A single-story church building is situated near the highway, serving as the meeting place for the Progressive Church, Inc. Fulkerson held legal title to the property since December 1949.
Around 1985, the Progressive Church congregation, led by Reverend Sylvester Van Buren, began using the church building and surrounding property without obtaining permission from Fulkerson.
The congregation undertook significant renovations, including clearing debris, repairing the church building, installing new features such as heating and air systems, and constructing additional structures.
In 1990–1991, Reverend Van Buren became aware that the church did not possess a deed for the property. Van Buren contacted Fulkerson and asked for a quitclaim deed, which Fulkerson refused. Van Buren acknowledged during this period that Fulkerson was the legal owner of the property. Fulkerson and Van Buren attempted to negotiate a lease agreement, but no agreement was reached.
In November 1994, Fulkerson sent a formal letter to the Progressive Church, demanding that they vacate the property. The church refused to vacate. In May 1995, Fulkerson filed a complaint seeking ejectment of the congregation from the property. The Progressive Church filed a counterclaim, asserting ownership of the property through adverse possession and requesting the title be quieted in their favour.
After a trial in October 1996, the Pulaski County Circuit Court ruled in favour of the Progressive Church, finding that the congregation had met the requirements for adverse possession.
Procedural History of Fulkerson v Van Buren
Floyd H. Fulkerson, the appellant, filed a complaint in Pulaski County Circuit Court seeking to eject Sylvester Van Buren and the Progressive Church, Inc. from a 4.5-acre parcel of land to which he held legal title. The Progressive Church counterclaimed, alleging they had acquired title to the property through adverse possession. After the trial, the circuit court ruled in favour of the Progressive Church, determining that the congregation had acquired title by adverse possession. Fulkerson appealed the decision to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
Issue Raised
Did the Progressive Church satisfy the requirements of adverse possession under Arkansas law, including the requisite hostile intent to possess the property adversely to the true owner for the statutory period?
Fulkerson v Van Buren Judgment
No, the Progressive Church did not meet the legal requirements for adverse possession under Arkansas law, as they failed to demonstrate clear, distinct, and unequivocal intent to possess the property in an adverse manner for the required seven-year statutory period.
Reasoning
Adverse Possession Requirements in Arkansas
To establish title by adverse possession, the claimant must prove:
- Actual Possession: Physical occupation or use of the property.
- Open and Notorious Possession: Actions that put the true owner on notice of the possession.
- Exclusive Possession: Sole control of the property, without sharing it with the true owner or others.
- Continuous Possession: Uninterrupted use of the property for the statutory period, which is seven years under Arkansas law.
- Hostile Possession: Possession under a claim of ownership, contrary to the rights of the true owner.
- Intent: The possessor must have a clear, distinct, and unequivocal intent to claim ownership.
Court’s Analysis in Fulkerson v Van Buren
- Hostility and Intent
- The court in Fulkerson v Van Buren emphasized that adverse possession requires possession to be hostile in the sense of being under a claim of right or ownership, rather than in recognition or subordination to the titleholder’s rights.
- Reverend Van Buren testified that in 1990–1991, he became aware that the church lacked a deed for the property. He acknowledged Fulkerson’s ownership and even sought a quitclaim deed, which Fulkerson refused.
- Van Buren admitted that the church did not decide to claim the property adversely until 1994, after receiving Fulkerson’s demand to vacate. This acknowledgment of Fulkerson’s title interrupted any adverse possession claim.
- Continuous Possession
- The statutory period for adverse possession is seven years. The court found that the Progressive Church could not demonstrate possession with the requisite hostile intent for the full seven years because their adverse claim did not begin until 1994.
- Presumption of Subservience
- The court in Fulkerson vs Van Buren noted that possession of property is presumed to be subservient to the true owner unless proven otherwise. The Progressive Church failed to rebut this presumption during the critical statutory period.
- Testimony showed that the church acted in conformity with the belief that they might have permission to use the property until their discussions with Fulkerson in 1990–1991 clarified his ownership.
- Insufficient Evidence of Adverse Intent
- For possession to be adverse, it must be clear, distinct, and unequivocal. The evidence presented did not meet this threshold. The court found the trial court’s determination that the church possessed the requisite adverse intent for seven years was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.
Disposition
The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment in Fulkerson versus Van Buren and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Dissenting Opinion in Fulkerson v Van Buren
The dissent argued that the Progressive Church had demonstrated sufficient evidence of adverse possession, emphasizing the following points:
- Renovations and Improvements: The church undertook substantial efforts to improve the property, including clearing debris, repairing the church building, and adding structures. Reverend Van Buren testified that the congregation would not have invested in these improvements if they did not believe they had the right to possess the property.
- Hostile Intent: The dissent noted that hostility in adverse possession does not require ill will but merely a claim of ownership. The church’s actions, including refusing to vacate after Fulkerson’s demands, demonstrated such a claim.
- Continuous Possession: The dissent believed the church had maintained continuous possession of the property since 1985, far exceeding the statutory seven-year requirement.
- Recognition of Ownership: The dissent disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the church recognized Fulkerson’s ownership in a way that interrupted adverse possession. Instead, the church’s actions and refusal to vacate indicated repudiation of Fulkerson’s ownership.
Fulkerson v Van Buren Summary
Fulkerson v Van Buren (961 S.W.2d 780, Ark. Ct. App. 1998) involved a dispute over a 4.5-acre parcel of land. Floyd H. Fulkerson, the legal owner since 1949, sought to eject the Progressive Church, which began using the property without permission in 1985 and made substantial improvements. The church claimed ownership through adverse possession.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision favoring the church, holding that adverse possession requires clear, distinct, and unequivocal intent to claim the land adversely. Reverend Van Buren’s acknowledgment of Fulkerson’s ownership in 1990–1991 interrupted the statutory seven-year period, and the church failed to establish continuous hostile possession. The case underscores strict adherence to adverse possession requirements.