The Arkansas Court of Appeals has ruled in a property boundary dispute involving Ty Floyd, Kristy Floyd, and Cottage Creations, LLC against Joy Bowlin-Lemon, Kim Bowlin, and Cornelia Bowlin. The court affirmed a lower court's decision that ordered the Floyds to rebuild a fence and awarded the Bowlins $12,000 for damages. This ruling impacts property owners and clarifies how boundary lines can be established.
The case, cited as 2026 Ark. App. 373, stems from a long-standing disagreement between neighboring landowners over the location of their property boundary. The Bowlins claimed that the Floyds had removed trees and fencing that marked the boundary, leading to a legal battle that began when the Bowlins filed suit in July 2023. The dispute escalated after the Floyds allegedly destroyed a fence and removed trees without permission.
In October 2024, a bench trial took place where both sides presented their arguments. Joy Bowlin-Lemon testified that her family had owned the property since 1967 and had always used the existing fence lines as the boundaries of their land. She described how the Floyds had initially repaired the fence but eventually tore it down completely. The Bowlins sought legal relief to have the fence rebuilt and to be compensated for the damage caused by the Floyds.
During the trial, the Floyds argued that they believed the property boundaries were different based on their understanding and a survey they claimed to have. However, they did not present any evidence of such a survey. The trial court found in favor of the Bowlins, concluding that a boundary by acquiescence existed, meaning both parties had accepted the fence line as the property boundary over many years.
The court ruled that the Floyds were responsible for the removal of trees and fencing and awarded the Bowlins $12,000 for damages. The Floyds appealed, arguing several points, including the valuation of the trees, the award of treble damages, the order to rebuild the fence, and the finding of a boundary by acquiescence.
Judge Stephanie Potter Barrett delivered the opinion of the court, stating, "The circuit court's finding was supported by substantial evidence." The court affirmed the lower court's ruling on the valuation of the trees and the award of treble damages, which is three times the amount of actual damages, under Arkansas law. The court found that the Floyds had acted recklessly in removing the trees and fencing, despite clear indications that the property belonged to the Bowlins.
Regarding the fence, the court noted that the Floyds had waived their right to contest the order to rebuild it since they had previously agreed to do so during the trial. The court stated, "A party may not complain on appeal of an action that he induced, consented to, or acquiesced in below." Thus, the Floyds could not challenge the ruling on the fence.
The court also addressed the Floyds' argument against the finding of a boundary by acquiescence. The court explained that a boundary can be established even without an express agreement, as long as there is tacit acceptance over a long period. The Bowlins' consistent use and maintenance of the property up to the fence line for decades provided sufficient evidence to support the court's decision.
The ruling has implications for property disputes in Arkansas, particularly regarding how boundaries can be established through long-term use and acceptance. It clarifies that property owners may rely on established fence lines as boundaries, even if those lines differ from surveyed property lines.
As for the next steps, the court remanded the case for the limited purpose of amending the judgment to include a specific legal description of the boundary in question. This ensures that the boundary is clearly defined in legal terms, which is important for future reference. The Floyds may have the option to appeal the ruling further, but details were not available in the court filing.