<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/wp-content/themes/feed/atom.xsl"?>
<feed
        xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
        xmlns:wwe="http://release.wwe.com/atom/1.0"
        xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0"
        xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
        xml:lang="en-US"
        xml:base="https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/wp-atom.php"
	>
    <title type="text">Gramling Law Firm, PLC</title>
    <subtitle type="text">Gramling Law Firm, PLC</subtitle>

    <updated>2026-05-22T10:36:49Z</updated>

    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com" />
    <id>https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/feed/atom/</id>
    <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/feed/atom/?forceByPassCache=0.5391714079634515" />
	
	<generator uri="https://wordpress.org/" version="6.9.4">WordPress</generator>
<icon>/wp-content/uploads/sites/1204311/2021/06/cropped-favicon-32x32.png</icon>
        <entry>
            <author>
									                    <name>On Behalf of Gramling Law Firm, PLC</name>
				            </author>
            <title type="html"><![CDATA[Arkansas Court Enforces No-Contest Clause After Beneficiary Challenges Lost Will]]></title>
            <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/blog/2026/02/arkansas-court-enforces-no-contest-clause-after-beneficiary-challenges-lost-will/" />
            <id>https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/?p=47147</id>
            <updated>2026-02-18T05:55:22Z</updated>
            <published>2026-02-18T05:53:13Z</published>
					<taxo:topics><![CDATA[-]]></taxo:topics>
            <summary type="html"><![CDATA[In Duvall v. Duvall, the court affirmed enforcement of a no-contest clause (also called an in terrorem clause) against a son who challenged the validity of his father’s later will — even though he argued he was only questioning whether the will legally existed. The decision is an important reminder about the risks of filing a will contest in Arkansas.…]]></summary>
			                <content type="html" xml:base="https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/blog/2026/02/arkansas-court-enforces-no-contest-clause-after-beneficiary-challenges-lost-will/"><![CDATA[In Duvall v. Duvall, the court affirmed enforcement of a no-contest clause (also called an in terrorem clause) against a son who challenged the validity of his father’s later will — even though he argued he was only questioning whether the will legally existed. The decision is an important reminder about the risks of filing a will contest in Arkansas.
<h2>The Background: Two Wills, Two Very Different Outcomes</h2>
Philip Duvall died in January 2022.

<strong>The 2009 Will</strong>
<ul>
 	<li>Left the estate equally to both sons.</li>
 	<li>Named Duane (one son) as executor.</li>
 	<li>Was admitted to probate shortly after Philip’s death.</li>
</ul>
<strong>The Alleged 2021 Will</strong>
<ul>
 	<li>Revoked all prior wills.</li>
 	<li>Left Duane “substantially less.”</li>
 	<li>Contained a no-contest clause.</li>
 	<li>Was presented as a lost will (the signed original could not be produced).</li>
</ul>
Greg, the other son, petitioned to probate the 2021 will as a lost will under Arkansas law. Duane objected, arguing:
<ul>
 	<li>The copy attached was unsigned and unwitnessed.</li>
 	<li>It did not comply with Arkansas statutory requirements.</li>
 	<li>No validly executed will had been produced.</li>
</ul>
After a hearing, the circuit court admitted the 2021 will to probate as a valid lost will and set aside the 2009 will.

Duane did not appeal that ruling.
<h2>The No-Contest Clause</h2>
The 2021 will included a typical no-contest provision:

If any beneficiary contests any provision of this Will in court, that person forfeits all benefits under the Will.

Nearly a year after the will was admitted to probate, Duane filed a motion to set aside the order admitting the 2021 will.

Greg then moved to enforce the no-contest clause.

The circuit court agreed — and disinherited Duane.

Duane appealed.
<h2>Are No-Contest Clauses Enforceable in Arkansas?</h2>
Yes.
Arkansas courts have long upheld no-contest clauses, though they are strictly construed because they result in forfeiture.

The Court of Appeals relied heavily on two prior Arkansas cases:
<ul>
 	<li>Seymour v. Biehslich – addressing indirect contests</li>
 	<li>Sharp v. Sharp – addressing direct contests</li>
</ul>
In Sharp, the court held that there is no good-faith exception when someone files a direct challenge to a will that contains a no-contest clause.
<h2>The Key Legal Question</h2>
Duane framed the issue this way:

Is merely questioning whether a will complies with Arkansas statutory requirements enough to trigger a no-contest clause?
He argued:
<ul>
 	<li>He was fulfilling fiduciary duties as executor of the earlier will.</li>
 	<li>He was not challenging any specific provision of the 2021 will.</li>
 	<li>Public policy should not punish an executor for requiring proof of validity.</li>
</ul>
The Court of Appeals disagreed.
<h2>Direct vs. Indirect Will Contests in Arkansas</h2>
The court drew an important distinction:
<ol>
 	<li><strong>Indirect Contest
</strong>Challenging the will before it is admitted to probate.</li>
 	<li><strong>Direct Contest
</strong>Challenging the will after it has been admitted to probate.Even if Duane’s early objections might have been considered indirect, the court focused on what happened later.
After:
<ul>
 	<li>The 2021 will had been admitted to probate,</li>
 	<li>The 2009 will had been revoked,</li>
 	<li>Duane was no longer executor,</li>
 	<li>And no appeal had been filed,</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ol>
Duane filed a motion to set aside the probate order.

That filing was a direct challenge to the will itself.

Under Sharp, there is no good-faith exception to a direct will contest.

The no-contest clause was triggered.
<h2>What This Means for Arkansas Will Contests</h2>
This case sends a clear warning:
<ol>
 	<li><strong>Challenging a Will Carries Real Risk</strong>
If a will contains a no-contest clause, an unsuccessful challenge may result in complete forfeiture.</li>
 	<li><strong> Timing Matters</strong>
Once a will is admitted to probate and not appealed, later challenges are especially dangerous.</li>
 	<li><strong> Lost Wills Are Recognized in Arkansas</strong>
Arkansas law allows a properly proven lost will to be admitted to probate.</li>
 	<li><strong>Good Faith May Not Protect You</strong>
Arkansas does not recognize a good-faith exception for direct will contests.</li>
</ol>
<h2>Practical Takeaways</h2>
If you are:
<ul>
 	<li>A beneficiary considering challenging a will</li>
 	<li>An executor faced with a later-discovered will</li>
 	<li>Involved in a dispute over a lost will</li>
 	<li>Concerned about a no-contest clause</li>
</ul>
You should obtain legal advice before filing anything in court.

The difference between preserving your inheritance and forfeiting it may depend on procedural timing and strategic decisions made early in the case.]]></content>
						        </entry>
	        <entry>
            <author>
									                    <name>On Behalf of Gramling Law Firm, PLC</name>
				            </author>
            <title type="html"><![CDATA[Arkansas Prescriptive Easement Law: Court Rejects Claim Over Rural Farm Road]]></title>
            <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/blog/2026/02/arkansas-prescriptive-easement-law-court-rejects-claim-over-rural-farm-road/" />
            <id>https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/?p=47148</id>
            <updated>2026-02-18T05:50:16Z</updated>
            <published>2026-02-18T05:50:16Z</published>
					<taxo:topics><![CDATA[-]]></taxo:topics>
            <summary type="html"><![CDATA[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…]]></summary>
			                <content type="html" xml:base="https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/blog/2026/02/arkansas-prescriptive-easement-law-court-rejects-claim-over-rural-farm-road/"><![CDATA[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:
<ol>
 	<li>Open and notorious use</li>
 	<li>Adverse (not permissive) use</li>
 	<li>Use under a claim of right</li>
 	<li>Continuous use for at least seven years</li>
</ol>
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:
<ul>
 	<li>Evidence showed that prior use of the road had been with permission.</li>
 	<li>The property was rural and unimproved, triggering the presumption of permissive use.</li>
 	<li>The plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the landowners were ever put on notice that the use was hostile.</li>
 	<li>The gate blocking access was not locked until shortly before litigation.</li>
 	<li>There were indications of alternative access routes, weakening the claim of necessity or exclusivity.</li>
</ul>
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.
<h2>Key Lessons About Arkansas Prescriptive Easement Requirements</h2>
If you are asserting or defending against a prescriptive easement claim in Arkansas, this case highlights several important principles:
<ol>
 	<li> <strong>Seven Years Alone Is Not Enough</strong>
The seven-year period is only one element. Without proof of adverse use, the claim fails.</li>
 	<li><strong>Rural Property Favors the Landowner</strong>
Arkansas courts are reluctant to penalize rural landowners for allowing neighbors to cross their land as a courtesy.</li>
 	<li><strong> Permission Destroys Adversity</strong>
If use began with permission, it will not become adverse unless the landowner receives clear notice that permission has been repudiated.</li>
 	<li><strong>Alternative Access Can Undermine the Claim</strong>
While necessity is not technically required, evidence of other access routes often weakens the argument that use was hostile and exclusive.</li>
</ol>
<h2>How to Protect Yourself in an Arkansas Access Dispute</h2>
Whether you are:
<ul>
 	<li>A landowner trying to prevent someone from claiming a prescriptive easement</li>
 	<li>A property owner whose access has been blocked</li>
 	<li>A buyer concerned about rural road rights</li>
 	<li>Involved in Arkansas real estate litigation</li>
</ul>
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.]]></content>
						        </entry>
	        <entry>
            <author>
									                    <name>On Behalf of Gramling Law Firm, PLC</name>
				            </author>
            <title type="html"><![CDATA[Is a Deed a Deed if it’s not recorded?]]></title>
            <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/blog/2025/12/is-a-deed-a-deed-if-its-not-recorded/" />
            <id>https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/?p=47139</id>
            <updated>2025-12-05T06:22:45Z</updated>
            <published>2025-12-05T06:20:18Z</published>
					<taxo:topics><![CDATA[-]]></taxo:topics>
            <summary type="html"><![CDATA[In Johnson v. Cohick (Ark. Ct. App. 2024), the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed a Carroll County Circuit Court ruling that had dismissed an ejectment action based on a later-recorded deed. The key issue was whether an unrecorded 1992 warranty deed—delivered but not recorded for more than thirty years—controlled title over a later deed recorded in 1996. Jerry Fultz bought…]]></summary>
			                <content type="html" xml:base="https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/blog/2025/12/is-a-deed-a-deed-if-its-not-recorded/"><![CDATA[<p>In Johnson v. Cohick (Ark. Ct. App. 2024), the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed a Carroll County Circuit Court ruling that had dismissed an ejectment action based on a later-recorded deed. The key issue was whether an unrecorded 1992 warranty deed—delivered but not recorded for more than thirty years—controlled title over a later deed recorded in 1996.</p>

<p>Jerry Fultz bought rural Carroll County property in 1991. In 1992, while still unmarried, he executed and delivered a warranty deed transferring the property to himself, his parents (Dale and Lana), and his sister (Janet) as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. That deed, however, was not recorded until 2023.</p>

<p>After marrying Joy Ann in 1994, Jerry executed a 1996 recorded warranty deed conveying the property to himself and Joy Ann as tenants by the entirety. Later, in 2017 and in 2023, Jerry and Joy Ann executed quitclaim deeds adding or transferring interests to Joy Ann’s son and daughter-in-law, the Cohicks—none of whom paid consideration.</p>

<p>After Jerry’s death in 2022, Lana was told to vacate the home she had long lived in. Lana and Janet sued for ejectment, asserting that the 1992 unrecorded deed was the true source of title. The trial court held that the later, 1996 deed controlled because Joy Ann was unaware of the 1992 deed and Jerry and Joy Ann paid for the property during their marriage. So the court dismissed the ejectment action.</p>

<p>The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed. Under Arkansas law, a deed is effective upon delivery, even if never recorded. So title passed in the 1992 deed even though it wasn’t recorded.</p>

<p>BUT: there’s an important caveat. An Arkansas statute protects subsequent purchasers for valuable consideration in situations such as this—in other words, someone that has paid for the property. The parties in this case stipulated that the later deeds were between family members and no one paid for them.</p>

<p>So the trial court was wrong in this case, because there was no value given. If a later deed was supported by consideration, the Arkansas statute would have protected the later purchaser from the unrecorded deed. The takeaway? A deed is a deed as between the grantor and grantee; but if you want it to be effective as to the rest of the world, you need to record it.</p>]]></content>
						        </entry>
	        <entry>
            <author>
									                    <name>On Behalf of Gramling Law Firm, PLC</name>
				            </author>
            <title type="html"><![CDATA[Arkansas Court of Appeals Upholds Attorney’s Fee Award in Contract Case]]></title>
            <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/blog/2025/10/arkansas-court-of-appeals-upholds-attorneys-fee-award-in-contract-case/" />
            <id>https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/?p=47128</id>
            <updated>2025-10-01T22:54:34Z</updated>
            <published>2025-10-01T22:48:52Z</published>
					<taxo:topics><![CDATA[-]]></taxo:topics>
            <summary type="html"><![CDATA[In Dark Knight Vending, LLC v. Allen d/b/a Feeze Kutz Barber Shop (Apr. 15, 2024), the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed a $6,555 attorney’s fee award to Felicia Allen after she successfully defended a breach-of-contract claim. Background: Dark Knight claimed it had an exclusive agreement to place gaming machines in Allen’s barber shop and sued for more than $100,000 in…]]></summary>
			                <content type="html" xml:base="https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/blog/2025/10/arkansas-court-of-appeals-upholds-attorneys-fee-award-in-contract-case/"><![CDATA[In <em>Dark Knight Vending, LLC v. Allen d/b/a Feeze Kutz Barber Shop</em> (Apr. 15, 2024), the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed a $6,555 attorney’s fee award to Felicia Allen after she successfully defended a breach-of-contract claim.

<strong>Background:</strong> Dark Knight claimed it had an exclusive agreement to place gaming machines in Allen’s barber shop and sued for more than $100,000 in damages. The jury rejected Dark Knight’s contract claim against Allen. Allen filed a counterclaim against Dark Knight that was dismissed by directed verdict.

In Arkansas, a court may award attorney’s fees in contract cases to the “prevailing party.” But who qualifies as the “prevailing party” can sometimes be murky.

<strong>On appeal,</strong> Dark Knight argued that (1) no party “prevailed,” (because Allen’s counterclaim was dismissed and the parties were left in the same position they started in) and (2) the fee was unreasonable. The court disagreed, holding:
<ul>
 	<li>Allen was the prevailing party because she defeated Dark Knight’s contract claim, even though her own counterclaim was dismissed.</li>
 	<li>The circuit judge acted within his discretion in awarding roughly half of the $12,779 requested, based on detailed billing and the court’s familiarity with the case.</li>
</ul>
<strong>Takeaway:</strong> In Arkansas, a party who successfully defends against a major claim can be treated as the prevailing party and recover fees. Courts have wide latitude in setting fee amounts, and appellate courts will rarely overturn those decisions.]]></content>
						        </entry>
	        <entry>
            <author>
									                    <name>On Behalf of Gramling Law Firm, PLC</name>
				            </author>
            <title type="html"><![CDATA[When a Bargain Isn’t a Bargain: Buying Property from the Commissioner of State Lands]]></title>
            <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/blog/2025/06/when-a-bargain-isnt-a-bargain-buying-property-from-the-commissioner-of-state-lands/" />
            <id>https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/?p=47062</id>
            <updated>2025-06-13T19:35:19Z</updated>
            <published>2025-06-13T19:26:12Z</published>
					<taxo:topics><![CDATA[-]]></taxo:topics>
            <summary type="html"><![CDATA[Every year, thousands of Arkansas properties end up in tax delinquency. Many of these parcels are eventually sold by the Commissioner of State Lands (COSL) to recover unpaid real estate taxes. For bargain hunters, these auctions can seem like a goldmine. But what looks like a deal on paper often carries hidden costs—and legal risks—that make it anything but a bargain. At Gramling…]]></summary>
			                <content type="html" xml:base="https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/blog/2025/06/when-a-bargain-isnt-a-bargain-buying-property-from-the-commissioner-of-state-lands/"><![CDATA[Every year, thousands of Arkansas properties end up in tax delinquency. Many of these parcels are eventually sold by the <strong>Commissioner of State Lands (COSL)</strong> to recover unpaid real estate taxes. For bargain hunters, these auctions can seem like a goldmine. But what looks like a deal on paper often carries hidden costs—and legal risks—that make it anything but a bargain.

At <strong>Gramling Law Firm</strong>, we help buyers understand what they’re really getting when they purchase tax-delinquent property. If you're considering a COSL purchase, here’s what you need to know before you bid.
<h2>What Is a COSL Sale?</h2>
When real estate taxes go unpaid for several years, the county certifies the property to the State. The Commissioner of State Lands then offers the parcel for sale—either at a public auction or through online bidding. The goal is to collect the back taxes and return the property to productive use.

The winning bidder receives a <strong>limited warranty deed</strong>—but that’s just the beginning of the story.
<h2>What Makes These Sales Risky?</h2>
<h3>You Don’t Get Clear Title</h3>
The deed from the COSL is not a general warranty deed. It comes <strong>without title insurance</strong> and <strong>without a guarantee</strong> that the property is free from liens, encroachments, or ownership disputes.

To truly secure your ownership, you’ll likely need to file a <strong>quiet title lawsuit</strong>—a legal action to clear defects and make the title marketable.
<h3>The Sale Can Be Set Aside</h3>
If the original owner or any lienholder wasn’t properly notified of the sale, they can come back and <strong>challenge the transfer</strong>, even years later. Improper notice is one of the most common reasons tax sales are invalidated in Arkansas.
<h3>You Might Inherit Hidden Liabilities</h3>
Federal tax liens, environmental violations, easements, and utility bills may <strong>survive the sale</strong>. COSL deeds do not always extinguish these encumbrances, and clearing them can be expensive—or impossible.
<h3>What's Actually for Sale?</h3>
Some COSL parcels are abandoned homes. Some are landlocked patches in the woods. Others are strips of unusable land between commercial properties. What they often have in common is that they were <strong>let go for a reason</strong>.

You’re not just bidding on the back taxes—you’re inheriting whatever problems caused the previous owner to walk away.
<h2>How to Protect Yourself</h2>
<ul>
 	<li><strong>Run a title search before you bid.</strong> Know who owned it, who may still have a claim, and whether it’s encumbered.</li>
 	<li><strong>Budget for a quiet title action.</strong> This is often necessary to secure financing, resell, or build.</li>
 	<li><strong>Visit the property in person.</strong> Many parcels are landlocked or unbuildable. Google Maps alone won’t cut it.</li>
 	<li><strong>Consult an experienced real estate attorney.</strong> Especially before investing significant money or planning development.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Final Thought: Know What You’re Buying</h2>
Buying from the Commissioner of State Lands isn’t necessarily a bad idea—but it isn’t always a good one either. These sales are <strong>buyer beware</strong> in the purest sense of the term. What seems like a cheap path to real estate ownership may be a costly legal quagmire.

At <strong>Gramling Law Firm</strong>, we represent buyers in:
<ul>
 	<li><strong>Quiet title actions</strong></li>
 	<li><strong>Redemption and possession disputes</strong></li>
 	<li><strong>Pre-bid title research</strong></li>
 	<li><strong>Clearing title for resale or development</strong></li>
</ul>
If you're considering a COSL property—or already own one and don’t know what to do next—we’re here to help you move forward with clarity and confidence.

&nbsp;]]></content>
						        </entry>
	        <entry>
            <author>
									                    <name>On Behalf of Gramling Law Firm, PLC</name>
				            </author>
            <title type="html"><![CDATA[When Trespass Isn&#8217;t About Money: Arkansas Court of Appeals Affirms Right to Sue Without Proving Damages]]></title>
            <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/blog/2025/06/when-trespass-isnt-about-money-arkansas-court-of-appeals-affirms-right-to-sue-without-proving-damages/" />
            <id>https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/?p=47027</id>
            <updated>2025-06-02T16:20:14Z</updated>
            <published>2025-06-02T16:18:39Z</published>
					<taxo:topics><![CDATA[-]]></taxo:topics>
            <summary type="html"><![CDATA[By Jim Gramling, Attorney at Law My first-year property professor, James Ely, wrote a book entitled The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights.  In it, he argues that the right to property is a bedrock principal that underlies all of our Constitutional rights.  In a recent decision from the Arkansas Court of Appeals, Ferguson v. Harrison,…]]></summary>
			                <content type="html" xml:base="https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/blog/2025/06/when-trespass-isnt-about-money-arkansas-court-of-appeals-affirms-right-to-sue-without-proving-damages/"><![CDATA[<strong>By Jim Gramling, Attorney at Law</strong>

My first-year property professor, James Ely, wrote a book entitled The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights.  In it, he argues that the right to property is a bedrock principal that underlies all of our Constitutional rights.  In a recent decision from the Arkansas Court of Appeals, <em>Ferguson v. Harrison</em>, the court reaffirmed that vital principle of real estate law: you don’t need to prove financial loss to sue for trespass.

<strong>Background</strong> Rick and Deanna Ferguson owned lakefront property in Hot Springs, Arkansas. Their neighbors, Mary and Michael Harrison, trimmed a row of trees and shrubs located on the Fergusons’ side of the property line. The greenery had served as a privacy screen and windbreak for the Fergusons. Mary Harrison cut back a significant portion of it without permission.

The Fergusons sued for trespass, seeking actual, punitive, and statutory damages. At trial, Rick Ferguson admitted that he couldn’t assign a dollar value to the damage and acknowledged that the hedges eventually grew back. Still, he wanted to vindicate his rights as a property owner.

<strong>Trial Court Ruling</strong> The trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of the Harrisons, reasoning that without proof of actual damages, the jury couldn’t consider the claim.

<strong>The Appeal</strong> On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed the decision. Citing long-standing Arkansas precedent, the court noted that <em>"a trespass on lands is actionable, although the damage to the owner is inappreciable"</em> (<em>Reeves v. Jackson</em>, 1944). The court emphasized that nominal damages are available simply for the violation of a legal right, even if there is no measurable financial harm.

In other words, if someone enters your land without permission and interferes with your property rights, you have the right to bring a claim—and to have a jury hear it.

<strong>Why This Matters</strong> The decision is a reminder that property rights are about more than money. If a neighbor crosses the line—literally or figuratively—Arkansas law provides a remedy, even if the hedges grow back or the damage isn’t visible on a balance sheet.

<strong>Takeaway for Property Owners</strong> If someone enters your land without your consent, you may have a valid trespass claim even if you haven’t suffered clear financial damage. Document the intrusion, stand firm on your rights, and talk to a qualified attorney about your legal options.

At Gramling Law Firm, we stand with Arkansas property owners. If you have questions about your real estate, boundaries, or trespass issues, contact us today.]]></content>
						        </entry>
	        <entry>
            <author>
									                    <name>On Behalf of Gramling Law Firm, PLC</name>
				            </author>
            <title type="html"><![CDATA[Arkansas Clarifies &#8220;Principal Office&#8221; Requirements for Corporations and LLCs]]></title>
            <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/blog/2025/05/arkansas-clarifies-principal-office-requirements-for-corporations-and-llcs-2/" />
            <id>https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/?p=47046</id>
            <updated>2025-05-26T16:54:03Z</updated>
            <published>2025-05-26T16:54:03Z</published>
					<taxo:topics><![CDATA[-]]></taxo:topics>
            <summary type="html"><![CDATA[On April 16, 2025, Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed into law amendments to the Arkansas Business Corporation Act of 1987 and the Uniform Limited Liability Company Act. These changes clarify how business entities must designate their principal office with the Secretary of State. The new provisions allow flexibility for businesses that don’t maintain a traditional executive office, while also increasing…]]></summary>
			                <content type="html" xml:base="https://www.gramlinglawfirm.com/blog/2025/05/arkansas-clarifies-principal-office-requirements-for-corporations-and-llcs-2/"><![CDATA[On April 16, 2025, Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed into law amendments to the Arkansas Business Corporation Act of 1987 and the Uniform Limited Liability Company Act. These changes clarify how business entities must designate their principal office with the Secretary of State. The new provisions allow flexibility for businesses that don’t maintain a traditional executive office, while also increasing accountability.
<h2>What Changed?</h2>
<h3>1. Entities Can Use Their Registered Agent’s Address</h3>
Domestic and foreign corporations and LLCs may now use their registered agent’s address as their principal office if they do not maintain a separate executive office, either in Arkansas or elsewhere.
• Section § 4–27–140(17) governs corporations.
• Section § 4–38–102(16) governs LLCs.
<h3>2. Entities Must Disclose a Physical Address for a Responsible Individual</h3>
When a business lists its registered agent’s address as its principal office, it must also provide the Secretary of State with the physical address of a specific individual:
• A corporation must identify an officer or director.
• An LLC must identify a member or manager.
<h2>Why This Matters</h2>
This law gives businesses more flexibility—especially remote or small businesses that don’t rent or maintain office space. At the same time, it ensures that someone in authority remains reachable and accountable by requiring a real-world address tied to an individual.
<h2>What You Should Do</h2>
If you list your registered agent’s address as your principal office, review your entity records now. Make sure you’ve named a responsible officer, director, member, or manager and provided that person’s physical address to the Secretary of State. You’ll need this information in order when you file your next annual report or franchise tax form.

If you need help updating your business filings or understanding how this new law applies to your entity, contact Gramling Law Firm. We help Arkansas businesses stay compliant and protected.

&nbsp;]]></content>
						        </entry>
	</feed>