A recent Arkansas Court of Appeals decision provides a clear reminder: long-term use of a road across rural property does not automatically create a legal right of access. The issue in the case (The Laura Taylor Living Trust v. The David Littrell Rev. Trust) was whether years of using a dirt road created a prescriptive easement under Arkansas law. The court ultimately rejected the claim — and the reasoning is important for anyone involved in an Arkansas access dispute. Under Arkansas prescriptive easement law, a person may acquire the right to use another person’s property if certain elements are met for at least seven years. To prove a prescriptive easement in Arkansas, the claimant must show:
- Open and notorious use
- Adverse (not permissive) use
- Use under a claim of right
- Continuous use for at least seven years
These elements closely resemble adverse possession, but instead of acquiring ownership, the claimant acquires only a right of use. The issue in this case was number 2 – whether the use was adverse.
The court noted that prescriptive easements are not favored in the law because they burden property rights. That means there’s a presumption of “permissive” as opposed to adverse, use when the property is rural, unimproved (no buildings) and unenclosed (no fences). As this case shows, that presumption can be difficult to overcome.
Simply using a farm road for years — even decades — is often not enough. The claimant must show conduct that clearly put the landowner on notice that the use was hostile and under a claim of right.
In this case, the plaintiffs claimed they had used a dirt road across neighboring farmland for more than seven years and therefore acquired a prescriptive easement.
The court disagreed for several reasons:
- Evidence showed that prior use of the road had been with permission.
- The property was rural and unimproved, triggering the presumption of permissive use.
- The plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the landowners were ever put on notice that the use was hostile.
- The gate blocking access was not locked until shortly before litigation.
- There were indications of alternative access routes, weakening the claim of necessity or exclusivity.
Because the plaintiffs failed to prove adverse use, the claim for a prescriptive easement failed. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Key Lessons About Arkansas Prescriptive Easement Requirements
If you are asserting or defending against a prescriptive easement claim in Arkansas, this case highlights several important principles:
- Seven Years Alone Is Not Enough
The seven-year period is only one element. Without proof of adverse use, the claim fails. - Rural Property Favors the Landowner
Arkansas courts are reluctant to penalize rural landowners for allowing neighbors to cross their land as a courtesy. - Permission Destroys Adversity
If use began with permission, it will not become adverse unless the landowner receives clear notice that permission has been repudiated. - Alternative Access Can Undermine the Claim
While necessity is not technically required, evidence of other access routes often weakens the argument that use was hostile and exclusive.
How to Protect Yourself in an Arkansas Access Dispute
Whether you are:
- A landowner trying to prevent someone from claiming a prescriptive easement
- A property owner whose access has been blocked
- A buyer concerned about rural road rights
- Involved in Arkansas real estate litigation
Understanding Arkansas prescriptive easement law is critical.
Small actions — such as granting written permission, installing gates, or objecting to use — can significantly affect future legal rights.