We all know this ..... Adverse usage up to a fence is

Makes sense to me. Acquiescence (at least in my state) is a boundary by agreement doctrine not adverse possession.

One of the citations in this case was:
Boyster v. Shoemaker

The dissenting Judge had this to say:

JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Judge, dissenting.
Res est misera ubi jus est vagum et uncertum. I submit that the common law concerning real property remained for more than a century and a half much the same as it existed in England on March 24, 1606, the date specified in our reception statute. See Ark.Code Ann. 1-2-119 (Repl.1996). However, in the last decade, particularly where the common law regarding acquiescence is concerned, it has morphed into an unrecognizable state, courtesy of the Arkansas Court of Appeals. To arrive at its current low-water mark, I believe the majority has made mistakes of both fact and law.

I will try to post links to the surveys tomorrow...

DDSM;-)

In these parts you can't adversely posses something you "assume" you own. Must be "Open and Notorious".

Bruce

SOP. If there's any use up to the alleged agreed line you add an AP claim. Because if the Judge decides not enough evidence for agreement then the use must be adverse and you can work on the other elements of that claim. Of course the other side will rebut that the use was permissive or neighborly accomodation.