Cleveland v. Gravel Ridge Sanitary Sewer Imp. Dist. No. 213, 81-150
| Decision Date | 30 November 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-150,81-150 |
| Citation | 625 S.W.2d 446,274 Ark. 330 |
| Parties | Grover CLEVELAND and Sybil Cleveland, Appellants, v. GRAVEL RIDGE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 213, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Gannaway & Darrow, Cabot, for appellants.
Herrod & Vess, North Little Rock and Townsend & Townsend, Ltd. by Willis Townsend, Little Rock, for appellee.
The key question on this appeal is whether the appellants, who own land within the boundaries of the appellee sewer improvement district, are barred by a 30-day period of limitations from recovering damages assertedly caused by the district's construction of three large sewage-treatment ponds in the vicinity of the appellants' land. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 20-706 (Repl. 1968). This appeal is from an order sustaining the district's plea of limitations. Our jurisdiction was invoked under Rule 29(1)(c).
The district was organized in 1971, but the construction of the sewer system was delayed for several years. In 1975 the district filed this suit to condemn rights of way for roads and sewer lines across the property of the appellants and others. The right-of-way controversy has been settled, but the appellants had filed an answer asking for $96,000 as compensation for the damage caused by the construction of the sewer-treatment facility next to the appellants' land. The district filed a reply to the appellants' answer, asserting that the claim was barred because the district had followed the statutes in 1973 by filing its assessment of benefits and damages, § 20-705, that net benefits had been assessed against the appellants' land, that the assessment of benefits was confirmed after the required two-weeks notice of a hearing had been published, § 20-706, and that the appellants had permitted the assessment to become final by failing to file suit in chancery court within the 30 days allowed by § 20-706. After a hearing on the issue of limitations only the trial court sustained the plea and dismissed the appellants' claim.
We must sustain the appellants' insistence that the district's proof to sustain its plea of limitations was deficient. Unquestionably the burden of proof rested on the district. McCrite v. Hendrix College, 198 Ark. 1149, 133 S.W.2d 31 (1939). At the hearing its witnesses testified in generalities about a public hearing apparently required by the Environmental Protection Agency, but there was a total want of proof about the district's assessment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chalmers v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., 95-891
...by a preponderance of the evidence that the statute of limitations was in fact tolled. Id.; Cleveland v. Gravel Ridge Sanitary Sewer Imp. Dist. No. 213, 274 Ark. 330, 625 S.W.2d 446 (1981). Fraud suspends the running of the statute of limitations, and the suspension remains in effect until ......
- Phillips v. Tires, Tubes, Wheels, Inc., 81-149
-
First Pyramid Life Ins. Co. of America v. Stoltz
...to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the statute of limitations was in fact tolled. Cleveland v. Gravel Ridge Sanitary Sewer Imp. Dist. No. 213, 274 Ark. 330, 625 S.W.2d 446 (1981); Rasmussen v. Reid, 255 Ark. 1064, 505 S.W.2d 222 (1974); Alston v. Bitely, 252 Ark. 79, 477 S.W.2......