Utah Supreme Court Moves the line further towards adverse possession in acquiescence law. Proof of possession only required on the claimants side of the line.
Long case, here is the end:
å¦ 30 Under our current approach to the occupation element of
boundary by acquiescence, a claimant must occupy his or her land up
to a visible line in a manner that provides the nonclaimant with
notice. Under the mutual acquiescence element, a nonclaimantÛ÷s
occupation up to a visible line is unnecessary, and the nonclaimant
can acquiesce through silence or indolence alone. As discussed in the
previous section, our early boundary by acquiescence cases did not
clarify the legal significance of the nonclaimantÛ÷s occupancy, though
some early cases looked to the nonclaimantÛ÷s occupancy as evidence
of acquiescence.57 To the extent these early cases required mutual
occupancy to satisfy the occupation element of boundary by
acquiescence, we recognize that subsequent caselaw has abandoned
this approach and here disavow any such requirement.
å¦ 31 Therefore, to ensure clarity in future cases, our boundary by
acquiescence doctrine requires a claimant to show: (1) a visible line
marked by monuments, fences, buildings, or natural features treated
as a boundary; (2) the claimantÛ÷s occupation of his or her property
up to the visible line such that it would give a reasonable landowner
notice that the claimant is using the line as a boundary; (3) mutual
acquiescence in the line as a boundary by adjoining landowners; (4)
for a period of at least 20 years.
å¦ 32 In this case, the facts show that Ms. Fautin occupied her
property up to the fence for over twenty years, thereby satisfying the
occupation element of our boundary by acquiescence doctrine.
Mr. Anderson, on the other hand, failed to visit or inspect his
property for a twenty-six-year period. Had he done so, he could
have timely objected to the fence. Accordingly, we affirm the
decision of the court of appeals.
Conclusion
å¦ 33 For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the court of
appealsÛ÷ decision. The occupation element in our boundary by
acquiescence doctrine does not require a claimant to prove
occupancy on both sides of a visible line. Instead, a claimant must
show occupation up to a visible line on his or her property only.
Since Ms. Fautin occupied her property up to the fence for over
twenty years, she satisfied the occupation element.
