Gary Brinkley, as City Manager of the City of Arkadelphia; And the City of Arkadelphia v. Brandon and Kortni Beene

── Gary Brinkley, as City Manager of the City of Arkadelphia; And the City of Arkadelphia v. Brandon and Kortni Beene ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: March 11, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 165 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-25-126 Opinion Delivered March 11, 2026 GARY BRINKLEY, AS CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF ARKADELPHIA; APPEAL FROM THE CLARK COUNTY AND THE CITY OF ARKADELPHIA CIRCUIT COURT APPELLANTS [NO. 10CV-23-115] V. HONORABLE BLAKE BATSON, JUDGE BRANDON AND KORTNI BEENE APPELLEES AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Chief Judge The City of Arkadelphia and City Manager Gary Brinkley (collectively “the City”) appeal from the order of the Clark County Circuit Court denying the City’s motion for summary judgment in which it claimed governmental immunity. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part. Kortni and Brandon Beene filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against the City and several nongovernment defendants.1 The Beenes alleged that they discovered the defendants using an excavator on their property, a 3.3-acre empty lot, with the intent to place a water line for a nearby housing development. The defendants told the Beenes that their 1 The other defendants were Mill Creek Investors Group, LLC; Good Ole Boys Holding Co., LLC; and Precision Excavating, LLC. They are not parties to this appeal. actions were authorized by an easement, but the Beenes requested that the work stop until the easement was produced. The Beenes alleged that the defendants left but returned the following day and completed the work without producing a valid easement. The Beenes’ complaint requested declarations that the City did not have an easement and that the defendants had trespassed, had unlawfully taken the Beenes’ property without just compensation, and had been unjustly enriched. The City timely answered the complaint, denying any wrongdoing and asserting various affirmative defenses, including tort immunity. Following discovery, the City filed a motion for summary judgment on numerous grounds. The City argued, in part, that (1) the only proper issue for declaratory relief was the existence of an easement; (2) the City has an easement by estoppel; (3) the City has a prescriptive easement; (4) the City’s work was done entirely within Clark County’s right-of-way; (5) the City is entitled to tort immunity pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 21-9-301 (Repl. 2022); and (6) the Beenes cannot establish that they are entitled to relief for trespass and inverse condemnation. In response, the Beenes disputed the existence of an easement and disputed that the City was entitled to immunity. The circuit court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment without specifying a reason. After the City requested that the circuit court enter an order expressly addressing the issue of immunity, the circuit court entered an order denying summary judgment based on immunity. The City has appealed from this order. Pursuant to Rule 2(a)(10) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil, we have jurisdiction to consider the statutory-immunity issue. City of McCrory v. Wilson, 2022 2 Ark. App. 200, 644 S.W.3d 823. However, we lack jurisdiction at this time to hear on appeal any issue other than whether the circuit court erred in denying summary judgment on the basis of immunity. Id. Our law is well settled that summary judgment is to be granted by a circuit court only when it is clear that there are no genuine issues of material fact to be litigated, and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Williams v. Pate, 2015 Ark. App. 327, 463 S.W.3d 734. Once the moving party has