Riddick v. Streett

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: JAMES B. SHARP; HOLT
• Citation: Riddick v. Streett, 313 Ark. 706, 858 S.W.2d 62 (Ark. 1993)
• Decision Date: 05 July 1993
• Docket Number: No. 92-211,92-211
• Parties: Edgar K. RIDDICK, et al., Appellants, v. Garland STREETT, et al., Appellees.

Page 62

858 S.W.2d 62

313 Ark. 706

Edgar K. RIDDICK, et al., Appellants, v. Garland STREETT, et al., Appellees.

No. 92-211.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

July 5, 1993.

Walter G. Riddick, C. Richard Crockett, Little Rock, for appellants.

Hermann Ivester, Todd A. Lewellen, Little Rock, for appellees.

JAMES B. SHARP, Special Chief Justice.

The record in this case consists of more than 3,000 pages, over 200 exhibits, and over 100 findings of fact by the Chancellor. The new rules of this Court did not go into effect until May 1, 1993. Rule 9(b) in effect at the time that the Appellants' Brief was filed herein in part stated, "... the Appellants' Abstract and Brief shall begin with a concise statement of the case, without argument. This statement, ordinarily not exceeding two pages in length, should be sufficient to enable the court to read the Abstract with an understanding of the nature of the case, the general fact situation, and the actions taken by the Trial Court." In spite of the facts above recited concerning the number of pages of the record, the number of exhibits, and the number of findings of fact by the Chancellor, the Appellant is not justified in writing a 19-page Statement of the Case, and certainly not without leave of this Court to do so.

The Appellants' Statement of the Case is in reality a lengthy introductory argument that fails entirely to comply with Supreme Court Rule 9(b).

Garland Streett, Sandra K. Streett, Robert V. Light, Cherry Light, Thomas F. McLarty, III, Donna McLarty, Jack L. Tyler, and Ann Tyler are residents and owners of lots located in Greenbrier Subdivision. Edgar K. Riddick purchased property now known as Greenbrier Subdivision from Louise S. Vinson in 1960. Jackson T. Stephens, Jr., and Nancy Stephens own a lot in Greenbrier that abuts the lot in Edgehill Subdivision on which they reside. Edgar Riddick was the owner, developer, surveyor, subdivider, and marketer of Greenbrier Subdivision and its constituent lots. Numerous problems and disputes between lot owners and Mr. and Mrs. Riddick developed as to the proper location of boundaries and boundary markers within Greenbrier and along Cantrell Road. Numerous surveyors experienced surveying problems because of large discrepancies on the plat of Greenbrier and between the plat and apparent claims of usage and of ownership. Using the distances shown as the boundaries, and the various angles at which those boundaries ran, all as shown on the Greenbrier Subdivision Plat, it was a mathematical fact that the figures of that subdivision would not close. That resulted in numerous discrepancies in the dimensions and locations of the various plots in that subdivision and those distances and angles shown on that plat.

The Appellees brought suit against Edgar K. Riddick, Jr., and June Riddick seeking (a) to have the Chancellor fix the boundaries of Greenbrier along Cantrell Road and between the lots in Greenbrier in a manner consistent with representations as to the lot dimensions, and the areas and the locations contained within the plat and Bill of Assurance and verbal and written representations of the Riddicks, (b) to have Greenbrier resurveyed to reflect the Chancellor's decision regarding boundaries and to eliminate the multitude of problems inherent in the deficiencies in the plat, (c) to have the Riddicks bear the cost of the resurvey, (d) reformation of the Greenbrier Plat and Bill of Assurance and Deeds to property in Greenbrier to conform with the resurvey and reformed plat, (e) easements by prescription, implication, necessity, and estoppel for ingress and egress to certain of the Appellees' lots in Greenbrier over a lot owned by the Riddicks, (f) injunctive relief, (g) damages for unjust enrichment, and (h) an award of attorneys' fees. The Appellees also sought to have the Riddicks estopped to deny that the boundaries should be fixed in accordance with the Riddicks' various representations.

June Riddick counterclaimed for damages on the ground that the lawsuit was frivolous, an abuse of process, and intended to cause her stress and mental anguish.

The City of Little Rock, Troy and Nicholas, Inc., Residential Funding Corporation, Randall Byars, Janice Byars, Sheffield Nelson, Mary Lynn Nelson, and the Arkansas State Highway Commission were named as necessary parties pursuant to Rule 19 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. No affirmative relief was sought against these defendants. The Highway Commission was dismissed prior to trial on the ground of sovereign immunity. The City of Little Rock requested in its Answer that the Chancellor order an accurate resurvey and replatting of Greenbrier in compliance with the subdivision ordinance.

In the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Chancellor (a) estopped the Riddicks from denying that the boundaries should be fixed in accordance with the Riddicks' various representations, (b) fixed the boundaries of Greenbrier along Cantrell Road and the boundaries of all lots within Greenbrier, (c) ordered that Greenbrier be resurveyed in accordance with specified guidelines and that an accurate plat based on the resurvey be prepared, submitted to the City of Little Rock for approval, and filed of record, (d) ordered that the Greenbrier Plat and Bill of Assurance and the deeds to the lots in Greenbrier be reformed to conform to the new survey and plat, (e) ordered the Riddicks to bear the cost of the resurvey, (f) declared that easements for ingress and egress over the private drive exist for the benefit of the various lot owners, (g) denied the Appellee Streetts' claim for unjust enrichment without addressing the merits of the claim, (h) denied the Appellees' requests for injunctive relief and attorneys' fees, and (i) denied June Riddick's counterclaim for damages. A timely appeal was filed by the Appellants and a timely cross-appeal was filed by the Appellees.

In reviewing the Chancellor's findings, this Court does not reverse unless it finds that they are clearly erroneous or clearly against a preponderance of the evidence. Ark.R.Civ.P. 52(a). This Court defers to the superior position of the chancellor to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Brown v. City of Stuttgart, 312 Ark. 97, 847 S.W.2d 710 (1993); McElroy v. Grisham, 306 Ark. 4, 810 S.W.2d 933 (1991).

Our decision is based upon the fact that the present plat and Bill of Assurances constitute a cloud upon the title of all of the parties to this litigation, and in order to remove that cloud upon the title to the real estate involved, a replatting of that subdivision and a new Bill of Assurances must be made. Since this opinion is based upon removal of the clouds upon the title of these parties, we do not reach the questions of any taking of the Appellants' land, reformation of any documents, planning of any fraud by any party, or any questions concerning the statutes of limitations.

All of the grantors of all of the parties, or their heirs, would be necessary parties to an action for reformation of a deed. Harbour v. Sheffield, 269 Ark. 932, 601 S.W.2d 595 (1980); Goldsmith v. Stewart, 45 Ark. 149 (1885).

We held in Dotson v. Aldridge, 246 Ark. 456, 438 S.W.2d 464 (1969), that "... we do not agree that the statute of limitations prohibits a person in possession from suing to remove a cloud upon his title even though the cloud had been in existence and within the knowledge of the possessor for more than seven years." While it is true that each of the parties here is not in possession of all of the land in Greenbrier, each party is in possession of some land in Greenbrier. And since the present plat of Greenbrier and the present Bill of Assurances themselves constitute clouds upon the title of the parties, the possession that each party does have is sufficient to take this situation out of the statute of limitations.

"The remedial processes of equity are quite flexible, and where there is a manifest right clearly recognized, in equity jurisprudence they cast about for some fit mode of enforcing it, if no exact precedent may be found applicable to the case." Goldsmith v. Stewart, supra. "A court of equity can fashion the relief justified by the proof. Keith v. Barrow-Hicks Ext. Imp. Dist., 275 Ark. 28, 626 S.W.2d 951 (1982)." Roe v. Dietrich, 310 Ark. 54, 835 S.W.2d 289 (1992).

While we have found no Arkansas Case authorizing an entire subdivision to be replatted, once the decision has been made that a replatting is necessary in order to remove the clouds upon the titles to these parties, the Chancellor is authorized to take such actions as may be necessary in order to remove such clouds upon the title.

Only by a replatting can these many clouds upon the various titles of the parties be removed. Only by a replatting can this be done with a clear, definite, and easily definable result. Under these circumstances, the Chancellor had good reason to appoint a surveyor to perform the duties required by her decree, as here modified. McDonald v. Roberts, 177 Ark. 781, 9 S.W.2d 80 (1928); Walker v. Walker, 8 Ark.App. 297, 651 S.W.2d 116 (1983).

In a...