Plaintiffs responded to defendants' letter by informing defendants that plaintiffs believed that they owned the western half of the driveway. In July or August of 1992, defendants erected a fence about six inches back from the property line as established by the stake survey. The trial court entered a judgment for plaintiffs, in effect determining that, based on the doctrine of acquiescence, the legal boundary line between plaintiffs' and defendants' property was the center of the driveway. That it occurred at least from 1972 and possibly before that. And that therefore, a portion of the driveway that is shown on the surveys, and I'm referring right now to the Defendants' Exhibit C, that a portion of the driveway is owned by the plaintiffs and, of course, and a portion is owned by the defendants.
Defendants appeal as of right.
We review the trial court's factual findings for clear error. Defendants argue that the trial court erred in determining that, based on the doctrine of acquiescence, the boundary line between plaintiffs' and defendants' property was the center of the driveway. There are three theories of acquiescence. The relevant theory in this case is acquiescence for the statutory period. We conclude that the Whites acquiesced to the center of the driveway as the boundary line between their property and plaintiffs' property for more than the fifteen-year statutory period.