From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Palmer v. Sanders

Supreme Court of Arkansas
May 16, 1966
402 S.W.2d 680 (Ark. 1966)

Opinion

No. 5-3884

Opinion delivered May 16, 1966

1. TENANCY IN COMMON — ADVERSE POSSESSION — EVIDENCE. — Mere possession and payment of taxes are not evidence of adverse possession as between tenants in common; a cotenant who relies upon adverse possession must prove that he asserted a hostile claim and notice thereof was brought home to his co-owners. 2. TENANCY IN COMMON — ADVERSE POSSESSION — EVIDENCE. — The fact that cotenant obtained conveyances from 4 of her brothers and sisters evidenced her recognition of their ownership. 3. TENANCY IN COMMON — ADVERSE POSSESSION — SELLING TIMBER MAKING IMPROVEMENTS. — Acts of cotenant in selling timber and making extensive repairs to the house in asserting a hostile claim were ineffective where they occurred less than 7 years before suit was brought. 4. ACTION — CROSS COMPLAINT — SERVICE UPON NEW DEFENDANTS. — Cotenant's argument that she was entitled to a default judgment against the "S" heirs held without merit where no service of process was issued upon the cross complaint as required by statute. [Ark. Stat. Ann. 27-1134 and -1135 (Repl. 1962).]

Appeal from Saline Chancery Court, C. M. Garden, Chancellor; affirmed.

J. B. Milham and Gladys M. Wied, for appellant.

No brief filed for appellee.


Upon the death of A. B. Smith in 1930 the tract of land now in dispute was inherited by his eight children. In 1962 one of the children, the appellee Annie Sanders, brought this suit for a partition of the land, asserting record title to a two-eighths interest. The defendants are another of Smith's daughters, Celestia Palmer, who has a five-eighths interest, and the heirs of a third daughter, Kate Schlachlin, who owned the other one-eighth interest at her death in 1954. Upon the filing of the complaint a warning order was published against the Schlachlin heirs, but they did not appear in the case.

Mrs. Palmer filed a cross complaint asserting title by adverse possession to the entire tract. Upon trial the chancellor rejected the claim of title by adverse possession and ordered that the land be partitioned among the owners. In this court Mrs. Palmer renews her insistence that she has acquired title to the whole tract.

We agree with the chancellor's conclusion that title by adverse possession was not established by the testimony. Mrs. Palmer occupied the land and paid the taxes during the years between her father's death in 1930 and the filing of this suit in 1962. It is firmly settled, however, that mere possession and payment of taxes are not evidence of adverse possession as between tenants in common. A cotenant who relies upon adverse possession must go a step farther by proving that he asserted a hostile claim and that notice thereof was brought home to his co-owners. Smith v. Kappler, 220 Ark. 10, 245 S.W.2d 809 (1952). There is no such proof in this case. Quite the opposite, the fact that Mrs. Palmer obtained conveyances from four of her brothers and sisters shows that she recognized their ownership.

Mrs. Palmer testified that she sold timber from the land in 1959 and that she made extensive repairs to the house about three years before the case was tried. Even if such acts should be treated as the assertion of a hostile claim they are ineffective in this instance, for they occurred less than seven years before suit was brought. Smith v. Kappler, supra.

The appellant also argues that in any event she was entitled to a default judgment against the Schlachlin heirs. It was incumbent upon Mrs. Palmer, in asserting a new cause of action against her codefendants, to bring them into court by service of process. Ark. Stat. Ann. 27-1134 and -1135 (Repl. 1962); Pillow v. Sentelle, 49 Ark. 430, 5 S.W. 783 (1887). There is no indication that any process was issued upon the cross complaint; so the Schlachlin heirs were not in default in failing to respond to that pleading.

The appellant's remaining argument, that the deed by which Mrs. Sanders acquired the interest of one of her brothers was void on account of a defective acknowledgment, is not of sufficient merit to warrant discussion.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Palmer v. Sanders

Supreme Court of Arkansas
May 16, 1966
402 S.W.2d 680 (Ark. 1966)
Case details for

Palmer v. Sanders

Case Details

Full title:PALMER v. SANDERS

Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas

Date published: May 16, 1966

Citations

402 S.W.2d 680 (Ark. 1966)
402 S.W.2d 680

Citing Cases

Martin v. Certain Lands in Izard County

Ms. Sims testified that she had worked hard to pay for the land, and that she considered her interest the…