Arkansas Estate, Business, and Property Law

Property Law Update:  Sale of Property in Divorce

In a recent Arkansas Court of Appeals decision, the Court confirmed that during a court ordered sale of the marital home during divorce, there is no requirement for a “minimum bid”.  Harper v. Cannon, 2009 Ark. App. 785.  In this case the parties had divorced, and the marital property was auctioned at sale.  A final bid of $48,000.00 was accepted, and both the husband and wife objected to the sales price as “grossly inadequate”.  Upon appeal, the Court ruled that mere inadequacy of price, unless so great as to “shock the conscience” of the trial court, is insufficient to overturn a sale. 

In Probate cases, applicable law holds that a sale price be at least 75% of the property value.  The Court of Appeals refused to apply this calculation to divorce cases, however, and referenced previous decisions by the Arkansas Supreme Court that “no formula exists” for determining an allowable sales price in this context.

Recent Decision Concerning Probate Interest in Real Property

In Butler v. Butler, 2009 Ark. 660, the Arkansas Court of Appeals addressed the claim of a son attempting to gain a 1/5^th interest in his father’s property 20 years after his father’s death.  Horace Butler died in 1986, holding a 1/5^th interest in real property.  The remaining 4/5^th interests were held by Horace Butler’s siblings, each of whom was also deceased.  Grant Butler filed a Petition to Quiet Title, alleging that as Horace’s heir, he was entitled to a 1/5^th interest in the land.  The children of Horace Butler’s siblings objected, claiming that Horace had no known children. 

To prove his claim, Grant Butler submitted testimony of a 91-year old man who stated that Horarce had told him that Grant was his son.  Grant also submitted copies of his birth certificate and documentation showing that his name had been changed to “Grant Butler”.  The trial court ruled that the documentation provided was sufficient, and the Court of Appeals confirmed. 

Adverse Possession Update

Pursuant to a recent Arkansas Court of Appeals ruling, cases involving adverse possession against family members require stronger evidence then cases involving non-family members.  In Nix v. Owen, 2009 Ark. App. 756, a decision reported on November 11, 2009, the Court clarified that the use of land by family members is presumed to be permissive, unless proved otherwise. 

Generally, in Arkansas, the following factors are necessary to prove a claim for adverse possession:

• Actual or constructive possession of the real property for at least 7 years which is visible, notorious, continuous, hostile, exclusive, and accompanied with an intent to hold against the true owner.