Adverse possession/Aquiescence - Utah 2014

ridge · 2015-03-18T04:49:00Z

Utah Appeals Court struggling with with when *title transfers* as a result of acquiescence to a boundary line. Seems to me they are a bit out of touch with the law but in a way the title does transfer as a result of the establishment of the boundary line.Seems acquiescence to the boundary had occurred many years before. Then a new owner using the old record title moved the line to the record boundary and after 10 years may have a valid adverse possession claim. Adverse possession to the old record title line, sort of a special twist in the life of a boundary line!Q2,LLC vs Hughes

Summarize Topic

Page 2 / 2 Prev

Business, Finance & Legal

Last Post by Norm 11 years ago

21 Posts

9 Users

0 Reactions

601 Views

RSS

Norm

(@norm)

Posts: 1331

Member

Translate ▼

Adverse possession/Aquiescence - Utah 2014 JB?

I missed the point of the thread. I don't agree that title transfers by acquiescence. There is no transfer of title. The location of the boundary was by acquiescence on the fence. My point is that there is nothing to prohibit the boundary line from changing by adverse possession if the conditions are met. This case is not about title, its about boundary location as are most.

Posted : March 19, 2015 11:38 am

Page 2 / 2 Prev

Forum Jump:

Previous Topic

Next Topic

Currently viewing this topic 2 guests.

26 Forums
54.5 K Topics
592.1 K Posts
354 Online
16.9 K Members

Forum Icons: Forum contains no unread posts Forum contains unread posts

Topic Icons: Not Replied Replied Active Hot Sticky Unapproved Solved Private Closed

Adverse possession/Aquiescence - Utah 2014

Please support our supporters!

Our Policies

Quick Links

Support