A fence that had been treated as a property boundary since 1967 has been upheld as the dividing line between two Arkansas properties, after a dispute over trees and fencing reached the state Court of Appeals. Bowlin-Lemon, reported by Justia, Leagle and Case Law Wire, affirmed the Bowlins’ boundary claim, a $12,000 treble-damages award and an order requiring the neighbouring owners to rebuild the fence. Joy Bowlin-Lemon’s family acquired the property in 1967, according to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
The ruling in Floyd v. The case involved adjoining properties in Crawford County and centred on a fence line that the Bowlin family had treated as its southern boundary for decades. The family was shown the existing fence lines when it purchased the land and subsequently used those fences as practical boundaries. The property was used for livestock, including cattle and horses, while the family also maintained the land up to the fence by brush hogging and cutting hay.
The court record says portions of the longstanding fence were removed beginning in 2017, with the fence eventually torn down. The Bowlins eventually filed a lawsuit in 2023, alleging trespass and destruction of their fencing and trees. A Crawford County Circuit Court trial followed in October 2024.
The appeals court said yes. Trees in the disputed area were also cut down. The central legal question was whether years of treating the fence as the boundary could establish a legally recognised boundary even if the fence did not precisely match the surveyed property line.
The circuit court determined that the trees removed from the disputed area were worth $4,000. The court also upheld treble damages, bringing the total award to $12,000. Under Arkansas law, a boundary by acquiescence can arise when neighbouring landowners tacitly accept a particular line as the dividing boundary for a long period. The dispute also became costly for the Floyds. The Arkansas Court of Appeals upheld that valuation, finding that testimony about the number and type of trees, photographs of the property and evidence of the clearing provided enough support. Arkansas law allows treble damages when someone cuts, destroys or removes trees belonging to another person. The appeals court found enough evidence to support the finding that the tree removal was intentional or, at minimum, sufficiently reckless or negligent to trigger the statute. Among the evidence considered was the presence of no-trespassing signs along the fence and Ty Floyd’s admission that he removed trees and portions of the fencing. The lower court also ordered the Floyds to rebuild fencing along the eastern and southern boundaries. The appeals court left that order intact. It noted that Ty Floyd had indicated during the trial that he was willing to rebuild the fence, while his attorney did not object when the Bowlins requested the injunction.
The court noted that an express agreement is not required, nor does there need to have been an earlier dispute over the property line.
The court also noted that the southern fence extended roughly 30 to 40 feet beyond the surveyed property line. In this case, the decades of maintenance and use along the fence, combined with the absence of objections from neighbouring owners, provided sufficient evidence for the lower court’s decision. Despite that discrepancy, the long-established conduct surrounding the fence supported its recognition as the boundary.