The court’s decision was rooted in a 1967 purchase that placed the Bowlin family in possession of a 1,200‑acre tract bordered by a wooden fence that had been treated as the southern limit for over five decades.
Under Arkansas law, a boundary by acquiescence can arise when neighbours tacitly accept a particular line as the dividing line for an extended period. The appeals panel found that the Bowlins’ continued maintenance of the fence and their use of the adjoining land for livestock, alongside the Floyds’ lack of objection, satisfied the statutory criteria.
The case also dealt with a $4,000 valuation of trees felled from the disputed strip. Arkansas law permits treble damages when trees are removed or destroyed; thus the court upheld the $12,000 award, citing evidence of intentional removal and the presence of no‑trespassing signs.
Finally, the lower court’s order that the Floyds rebuild the fence along the eastern and southern boundaries remains in effect. The appeals court remanded the case for a precise legal description of the boundary, ensuring the judgment can be enforced without ambiguity.