Jerry Arter v. Naomi and Francis Pike, Husband and Wife; And John Pike

── Jerry Arter v. Naomi and Francis Pike, Husband and Wife; And John Pike ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: April 01, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 210 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-25-132 JERRY ARTER Opinion Delivered April 1, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE SEARCY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 65CV-23-31] HONORABLE SUSAN WEAVER, NAOMI AND FRANCIS PIKE, JUDGE HUSBAND AND WIFE; AND JOHN PIKE APPELLEES AFFIRMED WENDY SCHOLTENS WOOD, Judge Jerry Arter appeals a Searcy County Circuit Court order quieting title to 5.42 acres in favor of Naomi and Francis Pike (“the Pikes”) and their son John Pike, finding that they established boundary by acquiescence and denying Jerry’s counterclaim seeking to quiet title and to set aside a quitclaim deed from the Pikes to John as a cloud on Jerry’s title. On appeal, Jerry contends that the circuit court clearly erred in finding a boundary by acquiescence and in denying his counterclaim. We affirm. I. Facts The parties are adjoining landowners who each purchased a “quarter quarter tract” of approximately forty acres without a metes and bounds description. Jerry’s property is north of the Pikes’ property. Jerry purchased his property on October 4, 2001, which is described in his deed1 as follows: The Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SE ¼ NE ¼) of Section Six (6), Township Thirteen (13) North, Range Seventeen (17) West. The Pikes purchased their property in 2005, which is described in their deed as follows: The Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (NE ¼ SE ¼) of Section Six (6), Township Thirteen (13) North, Range Seventeen (17) West, containing 40 acres, more or less. SUBJECT to an Easement for road and utility purposes 16 feet wide over and across the existing roadbed which runs West from County Road No. 5 along the North boundary of the above tract, pursuant to Judgment recorded in Circuit Court Book 44 at pages 356–357. A fence and a road run east to west near Jerry’s southern boundary and the Pikes’ northern boundary. The disputed 5.42 acre tract lies in that area. As stated in the Pikes’ deed, their title is subject to an easement “for road and utility purposes 16 feet wide over and across the existing roadbed” that runs west from County Road 5, also known as Lick Fork Road, along the north boundary line. In April 2019, Jerry had a survey performed, which showed that the 5.42 disputed tract south of his fence was within his forty-acre tract. The Pikes had a survey conducted in December 2019 that showed the same: 1 We note that Jerry’s deed contained descriptions of additional property that is not at issue in this appeal. 2  On May 18, 2023, the Pikes filed a petition to quiet title to the disputed tract alleging boundary by acquiescence and adverse possession. They alleged that there was a tacit agreement among the parties and their predecessors in title that the fence and roadway easement were their northern boundary line, specifically claiming that Jerry’s fence has been in the same place for decades, and that although Jerry had made improvements to the fence, the placement of the fence had not changed. The Pikes further alleged that the parties maintained the land on their respective sides of the fence and that Jerry trespassed and removed timber on their property. Jerry filed an answer and a counterclaim to quiet title and to set aside the Pikes’ April 2023 quitclaim deed to their son John because the deed inclu