Litigation

Plaintiff Wins Property Boundary Dispute, but at What Cost?

By H. William Allen et al.

The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed resolution of a boundary dispute in Boyster v. Shoemake, No. 07-593 (1/23/08).

The parties' lands are separated by a fence, although a survey showed the actual boundary is south of the fence. Shoemake presented evidence from her family and friends that the parties had always treated the fence as the boundary. The trial court entered judgment that the fence is the boundary. The court of appeals affirmed, with a slight reversal for a more detailed description of the boundary.

The interesting part of this case comes from Judge Hart's scathing dissent, which focuses on the fact that,  further to the east, the fence dips significantly into the surveyed description of Shoemake's property. Judge Hart believes Shoemake will be judicially estopped in the future from arguing the fence is not the boundary line and will have lost this property east of the fence.  

Full post as published by Arkansas Business Litigation Blog on January 24, 2008 (boomark / email).