## Facts

- George T. Wade died in 1945 owning the disputed Franklin County, Arkansas land; his seven children each held an undivided one-seventh interest.
- In 1947, George’s son, Guy G. Wade, signed a one-page “Agreement of Sale” stating that for $300 he sold his “rights, title and interest in the estate of my father George T. Wade—deceased,” and agreed to execute a “proper and legal conveyance” upon request.
- The 1947 writing did not identify any county or state, did not describe any tract, and did not otherwise identify particular real property.
- Guy died in 1948, leaving a sole heir, Victor Grady Wade.
- The 1947 writing was recorded in 1955.
- Victor later conveyed to Jack Bowlin what Bowlin claimed was Guy’s undivided one-seventh interest.
- Bowlin filed a partition action asserting an undivided one-seventh interest; Ova Lea Keifer (Guy’s sister) claimed she owned two-sevenths based on the 1947 writing and asserted alternative defenses including adverse possession, laches, estoppel, and specific performance.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1947 writing was a valid conveyance of real property or otherwise sufficiently described land to be enforceable.
2. Whether recording the 1947 writing provided constructive notice to later purchasers.
3. Whether Keifer established title or a bar to Bowlin’s claim through adverse possession among cotenants, laches, estoppel, or specific performance.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the trial court and remanded.
- The court held the 1947 writing was void as a conveyance because it failed to describe the land or provide a “key” by which the land could be identified.
- Because the instrument was void, its recording did not give constructive notice to Bowlin or his predecessor.
- The court rejected enforcement of the writing as a land-sale contract due to the same deficiency in the description.
- The court held Keifer failed to prove adverse possession, laches, or estoppel.

## Legal Principles

- A writing purporting to convey real property must describe the land with sufficient certainty, or supply a key enabling certain identification; otherwise it is void.
- An instrument void for insufficient land description does not impart constructive notice by recording.
- A land-sale contract requires a land description as definite and certain as that required in a deed; an indefinite description defeats specific performance.
- A cotenant claiming adverse possession against other cotenants must show the adverse claim was brought home to them by actual notice or by notorious, unequivocal acts from which notice is presumed; collecting rents alone does not necessarily constitute ouster.
- Estoppel requires proof of good-faith reliance to the claimant’s detriment on the other party’s acts, representations, inaction, or silence; without detrimental reliance, estoppel and laches do not bar the claim.

## Conclusion

The court recognized Bowlin’s claimed one-seventh interest and rejected Keifer’s attempt to take Guy’s share through a recorded writing that did not identify any land, and through alternative theories that lacked proof of notice, detrimental reliance, or adverse possession among cotenants.


Bowlin v. Keifer, 246 Ark. 693, 440 S.W.2d 232 (Ark. 1969)