A recent case from Oklahoma dealing with a fence line that, it turns out, is not the boundary line. This despite the fence having stood in place for many decades.
The case is a extensive discussion of the law of boundary by acquiescence and of adverse possession in Oklahoma.
It seems that since the parties knew where the deed / survey line was no amount of occupation to some other line was going to form an agreement line. And since it was shown that the fence was one of convenience, which the parties knew was not on the line, it did not form the hostility necessary for an AP claim.
Note that the veracity of the survey was not in question.
> "…a property owner is not required to place a fence on the property line and does not give up any rights by placing a fence off the property line and along some line within the property. In my opinion, East Landowners have the additional burden of showing who built the fence for purposes of boundary by acquiescence and adverse possession." (Emphasis in original.)
A certain late surveyor from Wisconsin must be rolling..........;-)
> A certain late surveyor from Wisconsin must be rolling..........;-)
Exactly what I was thinking.
Here in Oklahoma you can usually see a fence from the property line, but sometimes it's a bit of a walk to get to it.
