March 20, 2025
Utah Court of Appeals
2025 UT App 41 (click for full text of opinion)
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a boundary-by-agreement claim that sought to infer an agreement from silence or inaction, which improperly conflated the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence.
In 2012, the Freestones built a fence along a line that they and their neighbors both mistakenly believed was the true property boundary. This line was based on the neighbors’ sprinkler contractor’s spray-painted markers from years prior. Neither party had a survey done. Years later, after the neighboring property was purchased by the Waltons, a new survey revealed that the fence was not on the record boundary line, but instead extended more than 30 feet onto the Waltons’ property at its widest point. The Freestones then sued, seeking to quiet title to the disputed land based on the doctrine of “boundary by agreement.” The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Waltons, finding that the Freestones were conflating boundary by acquiescence with boundary by agreement, and that witness testimony that the prior neighbors “just went along with” the contractor’s drawn lines at the time did not evidence an express agreement as required for boundary by agreement.
On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, basing its reasoning on the specific elements required to prove boundary by acquiescence: evidence of an express agreement, and dispute or uncertainty over the true boundary. The Court reasoned that there was no evidence that the parties made an express parol agreement to settle a boundary dispute; rather, they simply assumed the fence was on the property line. The mere assumption or “acquiesence” to a fence line is not the same as a formal agreement intended to resolve a known dispute. There was no dispute over the true boundary in this case because both parties were under the same mistaken belief about the location of the property line. The court differentiated this case from the doctrine of “boundary by acquiescence,” which requires a boundary to have been accepted for at least 20 years. Since the fence had only been there since 2012, the Freestones could not meet this requirement. The court warned against improperly conflating the two doctrines, stating that inferring an agreement from silence or inaction is the domain of acquiescence, not agreement.
