Derryberry v. Sims

3 Citing cases

  1. Trice v. Trice

    2021 Ark. App. 153 (Ark. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    It is undisputed that Garland Sr.'s heirs had actual knowledge of Eoies and Ocie's adverse-possession claim. In Derryberry v. Sims, 267 Ark. 846, 846, 591 S.W.2d 662, 663 (1979), the following issue was presented: "Does the filing of a complaint to quiet title on the basis of adverse possession satisfy the requirement of actual notice of plaintiff's claim of exclusive ownership to pe rsons claiming to be cotenants?" The supreme court held: "[W]e can think of no more unequivocal way of conveying notice than by filing a suit to quiet title." Id. at 848, 591 S.W.2d at 663.

  2. Trice v. Trice (In re Slaughter)

    2021 Ark. 199 (Ark. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Thus, any heirs of Garland Sr., Ethel, Mattie, and Marguerite, as their successors in interest, had received actual notice of Ocie and Eoies's adverse claim. See, e.g. , Derryberry v. Sims , 267 Ark. 846, 847–48, 591 S.W.2d 662, 662–63 (Ark. App. 1979) (filing of complaint to quiet title conveyed actual notice of petitioner's adverse-possession claim to cotenants where the cotenants filed a motion in that same case to make the complaint more definite and certain). The 2018 warning order and the notice of quiet-title action filed in this case also were insufficient to provide actual notice for purposes of the present quiet-title action because the statutory period of time for an adverse-possession claim does not begin to run until such knowledge has been brought home to the other cotenants.

  3. Trice v. Trice (In re Slaughter)

    2021 Ark. 199 (Ark. 2021)

    Thus, any heirs of Garland Sr., Ethel, Mattie, and Marguerite, as their successors in interest, had received actual notice of Ocie and Eoies's adverse claim. See, e.g., Derryberry v. Sims, 267 Ark. 846, 847-48, 591 S.W.2d 662, 662-63 (Ark. App. 1979) (filing of complaint to quiet title conveyed actual notice of petitioner's adverse-possession claim to cotenants where the cotenants filed a motion in that same case to make the complaint more definite and certain). Likewise, the 2005 court of appeals opinion was insufficient to provide Robert Slaughter's unknown heirs actual notice of Ocie and Eoies's claim to the property.