Anderson v. Fautin
379 P.3d 1186 · Utah Supreme Court · 2016
Facts
Terral E. Anderson and Janet Fautin own adjoining properties in Piute County, Utah. A 2,000-foot fence, installed before 1930 by a previous owner of Fautin's property, divides the parcels. The Hansen family, previous owners of Fautin's property, lived on it in summers, had cows, and built a cabin and milking area north of the fence. Ms. Fautin purchased her property in 1987, used it for grazing livestock, and replaced the deteriorated fence in 2000, occupying her property up to the fence since purchase. Mr. Anderson purchased his property in 1968 but did not visit or inspect it for twenty-six years, explaining he was "on the ocean most of the time." A 2005 survey revealed that the fence encroached into Mr. Anderson's vacant parcel, not aligning with the legal boundary. Mr. Anderson filed an action in 2007 to quiet title to the disputed strip of land.
Procedural history
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Ms. Fautin, concluding Mr. Anderson's occupancy was immaterial to the occupation element. Mr. Anderson appealed this interpretation, and the court of appeals affirmed the district court's ruling. The Supreme Court of Utah granted certiorari on the single legal issue of the occupation element's requirement.
Issue
Does the occupation element in Utah's boundary by acquiescence doctrine require a claimant to prove that both owners of adjoining land occupied their respective parcels up to a visible line?
Holding
No, the occupation element in the boundary by acquiescence doctrine does not require a claimant to prove occupancy on both sides of a visible line. The court affirmed the lower courts' decisions.
Rule
To establish a boundary by acquiescence, a claimant must show: (1) a visible line marked by monuments, fences, buildings, or natural features treated as a boundary; (2) the claimant's occupation of their property up to the visible line such that it would give a reasonable landowner notice that the claimant is using the line as a boundary; (3) mutual acquiescence in the line as a boundary by adjoining landowners; and (4) for a period of at least 20 years. The court disavowed previous requirements for mutual occupancy or implied agreement, clarifying that the nonclaimant's occupancy is immaterial to the occupation element and that mutual acquiescence can be shown through silence or indolence. This approach aligns boundary by acquiescence more closely with adverse possession, ensuring it fills a gap in property law by providing a remedy for long-established boundaries without requiring proof of express agreement or tax payments.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.