dissenting. I would affirm the trial j court’s decision because it did not err in finding that the contiguous requirement of Ark. Code Ann. § 18-11-106 (a) (2) (Supp. 2005) defeated the appellants’ adverse possession claim. I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that the Robertses’ property is contiguous to the property that they claimed by adverse possession. From the Robertses’ complaint, it is evident that they were claiming adverse possession to Mr. Winningham’s property as identified by the Jorgen-son survey and, as the majority points out, this survey showed that the properties described in the parties’ deeds are not contiguous. It is not apparent that the Robertses were claiming ownership of the gap property, but even if they were, they were pursuing something that the trial court lacked the authority to do, given that the record title holder was unknown and notice of the quiet-title action had not been published pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 18-60-503 (Repl. 2003). See Koonce v. Mitchell, 341 Ark. 716, 19 S.W.3d 603 (2000).
Moreover, I disagree with the majority’s decision to remand for additional findings regarding ownership of the gap property. The appellants were required to establish that their property was contiguous to Mr. Winningham’s, and the trial court concluded that this was not proved. There was no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Winningham or the Robertses held record title to the gap property, and I see no reason for the trial court to reconsider a finding that it has already made on the evidence presented.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.