An Arkansas family treated the same fence as its property line for nearly six decades; after new neighbours removed fencing and trees, an appeals court upheld $12,000 in treble damages and an order to rebuild the fence
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. The ruling in Floyd v. 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. 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. According to the Arkansas Court of Appeals, Joy Bowlin-Lemon’s family acquired the property in 1967. 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.That arrangement remained unchallenged for decades. The dispute emerged after Ty Floyd, Kristy Floyd and Cottage Creations LLC acquired the neighbouring property. The court record says portions of the longstanding fence were removed beginning in 2017, with the fence eventually torn down. Trees in the disputed area were also cut 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 fence became more than just a fence
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 appeals court said yes.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 court noted that an express agreement is not required, nor does there need to have been an earlier dispute over the 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. The court also noted that the southern fence extended roughly 30 to 40 feet beyond the surveyed property line. Despite that discrepancy, the long-established conduct surrounding the fence supported its recognition as the boundary.
Tree removal resulted in $12,000 damages
The dispute also became costly for the Floyds. The circuit court determined that the trees removed from the disputed area were worth $4,000. 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.The court also upheld treble damages, bringing the total award to $12,000. 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 fence must be rebuilt
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.That meant the Floyds could not later challenge the fence-rebuilding requirement on appeal. There was, however, one issue the appeals court sent back to the circuit court. The original judgment did not contain a sufficiently precise legal description of the boundary. The appeals court therefore remanded the case for the limited purpose of adding a specific description that would allow the established boundary to be identified directly from the judgment.The decision underscores how decades of conduct can matter in property disputes. A fence may begin as a practical marker, but when generations of adjoining owners consistently treat it as the dividing line, that conduct can ultimately carry legal weight, even when a later survey points somewhere else.
