Reading Pallamary's column in the back of American Surveyor he mentions this case...
Potvin v. Hall C4-99-421 (1999) unpublished
It is important to understand how the Appellate Courts work when reading these cases. In the case of trial court fact determinations the Appellate Court will defer to the judgment of the trial court and will affirm if the determination of fact is supported by substantial evidence even if there is an alternate reasonable determination of fact that could be made. They usually affirm on a fact appeal. Sometimes they will review a determination of what the law is as a fact review.
On the other hand, a review of the trial court's application of the law to the facts will be de novo meaning they review the application of law as if for the first time. Most opinions that reverse are on this part of the review.
For example, if the trial court determines the physical location of the boundary and this determination of fact is appealed most of the time the Appellate Court will affirm. On the other hand, if the trial court determines a boundary by a legal principle such as practical location then the Appellate Court will test to see if the evidence fulfills each of the requirements of practical location in that State and, if not, they will reverse. They will reverse if the trial court incorrectly applied the doctrine.
In this case we learn that Minnesota requires clear and convincing evidence to prove acquiescence and practical location. It also appears that the Minnesota Appellate Courts review a trial court's determination of whether acquiescence and practical location applies as a fact review, they will affirm if at all possible deferring to the trial court's judgment.
In this case we have a non-existent practical boundary (assumed to be approximately 50' south of a fence on the north line of the neighbor's lot). Practical location requires an actual physical boundary established mutually to be the boundary, not an assumption from somewhere else. In competition with the non-practical practical boundary, we have a boundary established by a surveyor using other means which the trial court approved of and the Appellate Court declined to reverse.
There is also adverse possession on a limited area (the appellant's house). The respondent stipulated to the adverse possession.
I like the idea of a seller "donating" money towards some future survey by the buyer, thereby excusing the seller from any future boundary dispute.o.O
Perhaps drunk or otherwise incapacitated young men should "donate" money towards the future raising of a child should they awake, naked, next to a female who is naked, in a strange location, with the presumption of intercourse having occured during some period of unknown memory so that they can be excused from any future dispute over who's the baby's daddy.o.O
The $500 cited in the case is interesting. That wouldn't get me out of my office, if offered to begin work on finding the parcel in question.
