Rancher: Don't fence me in

In the case Barnett v. Gomance, Keith Gomance's mother, Wanda Stafford, owned a cattle ranch neighboring another cattle ranch owned by Shelby and Linda Barnett.

The ranches were separated by a 40-plus-year-old, tree-to-tree wire fence that had been built and rebuilt since a verbal agreement between Gomance's father and Barnett's predecessor in interest, under which both parties acknowledged that the fence was built 30 feet inside the Gomance ranch's property line.

The parties also agreed that both Barnett and the previous owners could graze cattle and otherwise operate their ranches up to the fence line.

According to Gomance, the fence was simply a wire nailed between the trees to keep the parties' cattle on their respective properties, and was erected to avoid the costs of constructing and maintaining a more robust fence, as the fence washed out every time there were major rains.

When Barnett purchased his ranch, he obtained a survey, which showed that the fence was not on the property line, but Barnett testified that he simply disagreed with the survey. Additionally, Gomance's father testified that he had discussed the property line with Barnett, who had acknowledged that the fence line was not on the property line.

After a fire destroyed the wire fence, Barnett built a new fence to contain his cattle. Gomance and his mother filed suit, claiming Barnett's construction of the permanent fence constituted a trespass on their property.

Barnett counterclaimed that he had acquired title to the disputed 30-foot strip through adverse possession or, in the alternative, that the boundary line had been moved to the fence line by acquiescence.

The trial court found in favor of Gomance and his mother, rejecting Barnett's claim to own the disputed strip of land. The court explained that Barnett had failed to make the showing required under common law and Arkansas' adverse possession statute, A.C.A. Section 18-11-106.

In particular, the trial court articulated, Barnett had "failed to show that the use by the (Barnetts) was notorious, hostile, and exclusive or that the (Barnetts) had taken any action to put (Stafford) on notice that they were seeking to convert the permissive use into a claim of ownership."

Additionally, the trial court noted that Barnett could not show that any of his predecessors in interest believed that the fence was the boundary line. ...CONTINUED

All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.