Title: Peter S. Boerst v. Mark Henn
Citation: 2011 WI 5
Docket Number: 2009AP001559
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 3, 2011

2011 WI 5 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
09AP1559 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
Daniel R. Northrop, 
          Plaintiff, 
Kay M. Boerst and Peter S. Boerst, 
          Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, 
     v. 
Betty Opperman, Connie Henn, Floyd Opperman, 
Keith  
Opperman, Mark Henn and Pamela Opperman, 
          Defendants-Respondents. 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
2010 WI App 80 
Reported at: 325 Wis. 2d 445, 784 N.W.2d 736 
(Ct. App. 2010-Published) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
        
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
December 1, 2010 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Ashland   
 
JUDGE: 
John P. Anderson 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner there were briefs 
and oral argument by Vicki Zick, Zick & Weber Law Offices, LLP, 
Johnson Creek. 
 
For the defendant-respondent there was a brief and oral 
argument by Joe Thrasher, Thrasher, Doyle, Pelish & Franti, Rice 
Lake. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of the Wisconsin 
REALTORS Association by Thomas D. Larson. 
 
 
 
2011 WI 5
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports. 
No.   2009AP1559 
(L.C. No. 
2007CV16) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Daniel R. Northrop, 
 
          Plaintiff, 
 
Kay M. Boerst and Peter S. Boerst, 
 
          Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, 
 
     v. 
 
Betty Opperman, Connie Henn, Floyd Opperman, 
Keith Opperman, Mark Henn and Pamela Opperman, 
 
          Defendants-Respondents. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 3, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed.   
 
¶1 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   This is a review of a 
published decision of the court of appeals,1 which affirmed in 
part and reversed in part the judgment of the Circuit Court for 
Ashland County, John P. Anderson, Judge.  Kay and Peter Boerst 
seek review of that part of the court of appeals decision 
                                                 
1 Northrop v. Opperman, 2010 WI App 80, 325 Wis. 2d 445, 784 
N.W.2d 736. 
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
2 
 
affirming the circuit court's determination that the boundary 
line between their property and the property of Betty and Floyd 
Opperman is the center line of Henn Road.2  We affirm this part 
of the decision of the court of appeals. 
¶2 
The Boersts own a parcel of land in Section 9 that is 
adjacent to and east of a parcel of land in Section 8 owned by 
the Oppermans.  The boundary line in dispute in this action is 
the western boundary of the Boersts' property in Section 9 and 
the eastern boundary of the Oppermans' property in Section 8.   
¶3 
The circuit court determined that the center line of 
Henn Road (which runs north and south) is the boundary line 
between the Boersts' and the Oppermans' properties.  The court 
of appeals affirmed this part of the circuit court's judgment.3 
¶4 
The Boersts present the issue as "whether the doctrine 
of acquiescence allows mistaken boundaries to become legal 
boundaries after twenty years of mistaken belief has passed."  
This presentation of the issue is driven by the circuit court's 
                                                 
2 The court of appeals reversed that part of the circuit 
court's judgment relating to obliteration of the section corner 
and "suggesting Henn Road is the section boundary."  Northrop, 
325 Wis. 2d 445, ¶15.  Neither party has sought review of this 
part of the decision of the court of appeals.     
As the court of appeals explained, the suit was initiated 
by Daniel Northrop, who owns the parcel immediately to the north 
of the Boersts.  Northrop sued the owners of the parcel north of 
the parcel owned by Betty and Floyd Opperman.  Only the Boersts 
appealed the circuit court's judgment to the court of appeals 
and sought review in this court.  Northrop, 325 Wis. 2d 445, ¶4 
n.1.  
3 Northrop, 325 Wis. 2d 445, ¶12.   
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
3 
 
and the court of appeals' use of the word "acquiescence" in 
their analyses.  Our review is not constrained by this statement 
of the issue.  The issue before the court is whether the court 
of appeals erred in holding that the circuit court correctly 
determined that the center line of Henn Road is the boundary 
line separating the parcel of land owned by the Boersts from the 
parcel of land owned by the Oppermans.  
¶5 
We conclude that in determining the boundary line by 
evaluating the evidence of common usage and acquiescence and not 
by using the legal doctrine of acquiescence, the circuit court 
applied the correct legal analysis in the present case.  After 
finding that the actual boundary line4 could not be determined 
from the deed and original monuments or markers, the circuit 
court evaluated the evidence and established the boundary line 
based upon the best evidence available.  There are sufficient 
facts in the record upon which the circuit court based its 
findings that the actual boundary line could not be determined 
from the deed and the original monument or markers and that the 
best evidence supports the center line of Henn Road as the 
boundary line separating the parcels owned by the parties to 
this review.  The best evidence was not the successive surveys 
but common usage and acquiescence.     
I 
                                                 
4 The actual or true boundary line ordinarily refers to the 
line that was fixed by the original survey or plat.  See, e.g., 
City of Racine v. Emerson, 85 Wis. 80, 86, 55 N.W. 177 (1893).    
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
4 
 
¶6 
Resolution of a boundary dispute is ordinarily fact-
driven, and the present case is no exception.  The record in 
this case reflects a rich history of over 120 years involving 
the lands in question in Sections 8 and 9.     
¶7 
We begin the history in July 9, 1886, with the 
original survey of Henn Road.  The Butternut Town Board laid out 
a public highway, Henn Road, described as beginning at the 
"southwest corner of section 9 (nine) thence north on the sec 
line to the north west corner of section 9 (nine)."  Henn Road 
then continues west from the northerly end of the north/south 
part of the road.  Although the Road presently curves, 
apparently it was originally a right-angle intersection with the 
corner common to Sections 4, 5, 8, and 9 believed to be at the 
intersection of the two parts of the Road.  
¶8 
In 1907, the Town of Butternut contracted with  
Ashland County Surveyor George Parker to run survey lines 
according to the original government survey or, if the original 
landmarks were destroyed or lost, to reestablish those corners 
under the general rules adopted by the government in the survey 
of public lands.  Parker submitted a survey in 1908.  Shortly 
thereafter the Town Board directed Parker to complete the survey 
and finish setting the monuments as contracted.   
¶9 
As a result of the 1908 Parker survey, litigation 
ensued between owners of parcels in Section 8 and Section 5.  
Section 5 borders Section 8 to the north, and Sections 5, 8, and 
9 share (along with section 4) a common corner.  In that 
litigation it was alleged that the 1908 survey moved the 
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
5 
 
boundary line between Sections 8 and 5 south of the east/west 
part of Henn Road.  The jury returned a verdict determining that 
the owner of parcels in Section 8 owned the land up to the 
center line of the east/west part of Henn Road. 
¶10 In 1911 another survey by Parker was presented to the 
Town Board.  The Town Board records indicate some wrangling over 
the acceptance of the 1911 survey, but in 1912 a certificate of 
survey bearing Parker's name was recorded.  The 1912 survey 
contains different bearings than the 1908 survey submitted by 
Parker for the boundary line between Sections 8 and 9.      
¶11 In 1917 the same owner of parcels in Section 8 again 
initiated litigation to resolve a boundary dispute.  In the 1917 
action, the owner of parcels in Section 8 claimed title to 
portions of land north of the east/west part of Henn Road.  He 
based his claim on the 1912 Parker survey, arguing that the 
boundary line between Sections 8 and 5 was north of Henn Road.  
The owner of parcels in Section 5 alleged that the road was 
accepted by everyone as the boundary line between Sections 5 and 
8 and that people living along the road, relying upon that line, 
had made large and extensive improvements on the land.     
¶12 Based on the evidence introduced at trial, the parties 
stipulated that the common corner of Sections 4, 5, 8, and 9 in 
Township 41 North, Range 1 West, Ashland County, Wisconsin, is 
at the intersection of the center line of Henn Road, setting 
Henn Road as the boundary between Sections 5 and 8. 
¶13 For 88 years after this stipulation, the record 
supports the proposition that Henn Road was honored as the 
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
6 
 
boundary line between Sections 5 and 8, and the original 
intersection of Henn Road was honored as the common corner. 
¶14 One example of reliance by the government and property 
owners upon that common corner can be found in the 1935 
conveyance of land from the then-owners of parcels in Section 8 
to the State of Wisconsin for the purposes of building a new 
Highway 13 through Section 8 and the plat of the right of way 
required.  The conveyance described the land conveyed by 
reference to the northeast corner of Section 8, and the Plat of 
the Right of Way Required shows the common corner of Sections 4, 
5, 8, and 9 at the original intersection of the north/south and 
east/west parts of Henn Road.5   
¶15 The "boundary peace" was disturbed in 2005 when a 
surveyor found a concrete monument in the swamp northwest of the 
original intersection of Henn Road and notified the county 
surveyor.  The county surveyor accepted the concrete monument as 
                                                 
5 The 1935 conveyance for Highway 13 described the real 
estate conveyed as follows:  
All that part of a strip or parcel of land lying 
within the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of the Northeast 
Quarter (NE 1/4) and the West Half (W 1/2) of the 
Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of  Section 8, Township 41 
North, Range 1 West, a reference line to which is more 
fully described as follows: 
Beginning at a point on the North section line and 
2594.1 ft. west of the Northeast corner of Section 8 
aforesaid; thence southeasterly at an angle of 48 
degrees 19 minutes with said North section line for a 
distance of 3615.6 ft. to an intersection with the 
East and West one-quarter line of Section 8 aforesaid.  
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
7 
 
a section corner under the 1912 survey and recorded a corner 
restoration sheet (tie sheet) for the corner common to Sections 
4, 5, 8, and 9.  According to the 2005 survey, north/south Henn 
Road actually lies entirely in Section 9, approximately 600 feet 
east of Section 8, giving the Boersts additional acreage and the 
Oppermans less acreage.     
¶16 The 
Oppermans, 
through 
an 
independent 
surveyor, 
prepared an alternative tie sheet for the common corner, setting 
the original intersection of Henn Road as the common corner.  
The county surveyor did not accept this alternative tie sheet.  
¶17 The 2005 survey caused significant disruption and 
confusion for landowners in the area.6  This litigation ensued. 
II 
¶18 The Boersts commenced this action, asking the circuit 
court to declare them the rightful owners of land lying west of 
the north/south Henn Road.  A one-day trial ensued consisting 
almost entirely of expert testimony concerning the location of 
the corner common to Sections 4, 5, 8, and 9.   
                                                 
6 Letter from Ashland County Highway Department to affected 
property owners (Oct. 3, 2006): 
It has come to the attention of Ashland County, that a 
serious mistake has been discovered with respect to 
property boundaries in Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 
Township 41 North, Range 1 W, Town of Chippewa, 
Ashland County.  For many years, property has been 
utilized and occupied based on assumptions that the 
Town Roads fell on the Section lines when in-fact, the 
Section Lines and Sections Corners are up to 100 to 
400 feet off of the road centerline.  This discrepancy 
has already led to conflicts with neighboring property 
owners.  
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
8 
 
¶19 Pertinent to our analysis, the circuit court made the 
following findings of fact: 
• The original section corner monument between Sections 
4, 5, 8, and 9 in Township 41 North, Range 1 West, 
Ashland County, Wisconsin no longer exists.  
• No competent evidence is before the court to determine 
where the original section corner monument was originally 
placed. 
• No clear and convincing evidence exists that the 
resetting of the corners in the 1912 Parker survey (upon 
which the 2005 tie sheet is based) was correct. 
• Neither party has shown by clear and convincing 
evidence where the actual boundary line exists. 
¶20 The circuit court further concluded that the original 
boundary line between Sections 8 and 9 cannot be determined 
solely by the descriptions in the deeds.  
¶21 The deed to the Boersts' parcel describes the real 
estate as "The Southwest one-fourth (1/4) of the Northwest one-
fourth (1/4) of Section Nine (9), Township Forty-one (41) North, 
Range One (1) West, Town of Chippewa, County of Ashland, 
Wisconsin."  The deed to the Oppermans' parcel describes the 
real estate as "The Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, 
Section 8, Township 41 North, of Range 1 West . . . ."  
¶22 Although the descriptions in the deeds are unambiguous 
on their face, the real estate described cannot be located on 
the ground because, as the circuit court explained, "the corner 
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
9 
 
of Sections 4,7 5, 8, and 9 cannot be located."  Thus it is not 
possible using the deed descriptions and nothing more to locate 
on the ground the southwest one-fourth of the northwest one-
fourth of Section 9 and the southeast quarter of the northeast 
quarter of Section 8.8          
¶23 The 
circuit court therefore looked to extrinsic 
evidence to determine the boundary line and concluded that "the 
best evidence available are the lines of occupation and 
possession" and that the landowners and the County have used the 
center line of Henn Road as the boundary line between the 
properties at issue for "almost all of the twentieth century and 
up until the year 2005."  Accordingly, the circuit court 
concluded that "[i]t is the judgment of this court that a 
longstanding common usage and acquiescence to ownership and 
possession to real estate has occurred in the area of the Henn 
                                                 
7 Section 4 is north of section 9. 
8 A description of a parcel as a quarter section in one deed 
may be ambiguous although a reference to a different quarter 
section in another deed may be unambiguous.  Likewise, a statute 
that is unambiguous in one context may be ambiguous in another 
context.  Teschendorf v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 2006 WI 89, ¶20, 
293 Wis. 2d 123, 717 N.W.2d 258.  In contrast with the present 
case, in Chandelle Enterprises, LLC v. XLNT Dairy Farm, Inc., 
2005 WI App 110, ¶¶12-16, 282 Wis. 2d 806, 699 N.W.2d 241, the 
court of appeals concluded that under the facts of that case the 
description of the property as a quarter section was not 
ambiguous.  In Chandelle, the court of appeals did not look to 
extrinsic evidence outside of the deeds because "the fact that a 
surveyor, using the deeds, has established what the parties 
agree 
is 
the 
true 
boundary 
line 
demonstrates 
that 
the 
descriptions were sufficiently clear and definite."  Chandelle, 
282 Wis. 2d 806, ¶16.  
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
10 
 
Road in Ashland County near the common sections of 4, 5, 8, and 
9 [and] [t]he centerline of the existing Henn Road is determined 
to be the boundary line between the property owners in this 
case."  For the reasons set forth, we agree with the circuit 
court's determination of the location of the boundary line at 
issue based on the evidence in this case, not based on the legal 
doctrine of acquiescence. 
¶24 The 
court 
of 
appeals 
devoted 
its 
decision 
predominantly to rejecting the Boersts' argument (which relied 
on Buza v. Wojtalewicz, 48 Wis. 2d 557, 180 N.W.2d 556 (1970)) 
that the doctrine of acquiescence is not applicable in the 
present case because the doctrine applies only to boundary 
disputes arising from ambiguous deeds.  The court of appeals 
concluded that Buza does not hold that an unambiguous deed 
trumps mistaken boundary lines after the statutory period has 
run.      
III 
¶25 The Boersts dispute the court of appeals' affirmance 
of the circuit court's judgment that the center line of Henn 
Road marks the boundary line. 
¶26 Wisconsin has a long line of cases settling boundary 
disputes.  The case law demonstrates that the resolution of 
boundary disputes depends on fact-specific analyses.  The court 
has stated that "[a]s is usual, boundary disputes are generally 
between friends who become enemies and the facts are detailed 
and 
somewhat 
confusing, all of which give rise to the 
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
11 
 
conflicting principles of law."9  These conflicting principles of 
law are not unique to Wisconsin law.     
¶27 The parties and the amicus curiae brief of the 
Wisconsin Realtors Association attempt to categorize a multitude 
of Wisconsin boundary dispute cases in an effort to establish  
principles of law that can be applied in the present case.  The 
parties do not necessarily agree on the categorization of the 
cases or the principles of law derived from the cases.  Indeed, 
the cases cannot easily and consistently be divided into 
doctrinal categories, and doctrinal categories significantly 
overlap.10       
¶28 One "category" of cases is adverse possession, now 
governed by Wis. Stat. § 893.25 (2007-08).11  As both parties 
clearly state, in their briefs and at oral argument, neither 
party is asserting adverse possession in this case.12  We 
therefore do not review the present case as an adverse 
possession case. 
                                                 
9 Beduhn v. Kolar, 56 Wis. 2d 471, 473, 202 N.W.2d 272 
(1973). 
10 "A boundary line different from that described in the 
respective deeds of adjoining landowners may be established 
under 
the 
respective 
principles 
of 
adverse 
possession, 
prescription, agreement, practical location, acquiescence or 
estoppel.  Each of these has a different factual background 
though too often they are confused by the courts."  6 John S. 
Grimes, Thompson on Real Property § 3034, at 506 (1962). 
11 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2007-
08 version unless otherwise noted. 
12 The amicus argued that the present case is an adverse 
possession case. 
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
12 
 
¶29 Other formulations of categories of cases include 
cases in which adjoining owners dispute the location of the 
boundary line, subsequently establish a boundary line by mutual 
agreement, and acquiesce in its location;13 cases in which 
adjoining owners take conveyances from a common grantor that 
describe the premises conveyed by lot numbers but the grantees 
have purchased with reference to a boundary line then marked on 
the ground;14 cases in which adjacent property owners agree to 
have the land surveyed to build a fence, build a fence in 
reliance on the survey, and acquiesce to the boundary;15 cases in 
which the description of the premises in a deed is definite, 
certain, and unambiguous and extrinsic evidence is inadmissible 
to show acquiescence to a boundary line in a different 
location;16 cases in which a survey is in conflict with a 
                                                 
13 See, e.g., Pickett v. Nelson, 71 Wis. 542, 546, 37 
N.W. 836 (1888). 
14 See, e.g., 
Thiel v. Damrau, 268 Wis. 76, 81, 66 
N.W.2d 747 (1954). 
15 See, e.g., Nagel v. Philipsen, 4 Wis. 2d 104, 110, 90 
N.W.2d 151 (1958). 
16 See, e.g., Grosshans v. Rueping, 36 Wis. 2d 519, 528, 153 
N.W.2d 619 (1967) (quoting Elofrson v. Lindsay, 90 Wis. 203, 
205, 63 N.W. 89 (1895)); Elofrson v. Lindsay, 90 Wis. 203, 205, 
63 N.W. 89 (1895) ("It is also well settled that, where the 
description of the premises in a deed is definite, certain, and 
unambiguous, extrinsic evidence to show acquiescence in a 
different 
location 
is inadmissible, unless such practical 
location is followed by an adverse possession for such a length 
of time as to bar an action for the recovery of the lands."). 
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
13 
 
longstanding 
fence 
line;17 
and 
estoppel 
cases.18 
 
These 
formulations or categories tend to overlap and are not used in a 
consistent fashion in the case law.19  
¶30 No attempt is made to include herein an exhaustive 
list of the formulations, terminology, or categories used by 
this court in the numerous boundary dispute cases.  Instead we 
have included a number of the more commonly used formulations to 
illustrate the language used in our case law to resolve boundary 
disputes and the historic inability of the court to consistently 
classify boundary disputes into doctrinal categories. 
¶31 In the present review, the parties focus on the word 
"acquiescence," used by the circuit court and court of appeals.  
The word "acquiescence" has been used in numerous Wisconsin 
cases, not always consistently.   
                                                 
17 See, e.g., City of Racine v. Emerson, 85 Wis. 80, 55 
N.W. 177 (1893). 
18 See, e.g., Gove v. White, 23 Wis. 282 (1868).   
For discussions of boundary by estoppel, see Jacqueline P. 
Hand & James Charles Smith, Neighboring Property Owners § 6.11 
(1988); Clark on Surveying and Boundaries § 20.04 (7th ed. 
1998). 
19 For instance, in Buza v. Wojtalewicz, 48 Wis. 2d 557, 
567, 180 N.W.2d 556 (1970), the court stated that "insofar as 
boundary disputes are concerned, we are unable to discern from 
the cases any functional differences between acquiescence and 
estoppel.  These two terms do not represent separate doctrines 
or concepts.  Acquiescence is a condition or fact which, if 
proven, results in an estoppel against the party who has 
acquiesced." 
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
14 
 
¶32 Sometimes the word is seemingly used to mean that the 
conduct of the parties in acquiescing, that is, agreeing to or 
complying with, a boundary line constitutes the best evidence of 
the boundary line.  The word "acquiescence" is thus used to mean 
that the conduct of neighbors is evidence of a boundary line. 
¶33 Other times the word "acquiescence" is seemingly used 
in the case law to refer to a legal doctrine, namely boundary by 
acquiescence or agreement.20  The doctrine of acquiescence has 
also sometimes been referred to as "rules as to practical 
location."21  
¶34 Citing Pickett v. Nelson, 71 Wis. 542, 546, 37 N.W. 
836 (1888), the Boersts assert that the doctrine of acquiescence 
applies only when a party proves (1) genuine uncertainty about 
the boundary line that cannot be resolved; (2) a dispute or 
                                                 
20 For discussions of the two separate and distinct uses of 
the 
word 
"acquiescence," see Annotation, Establishment of 
Boundary Line by Oral Agreement or Acquiescence, 69 A.L.R. 1430, 
§ IV(a), (i) (1930 & Cumulative Supp.); James O. Pearson, 
Annotation, Fence as Factor in Fixing Location of Boundary Line, 
7 A.L.R. 4th 53, § 2.1 (1981 & Cumulative Supp.).  
For 
discussions 
of 
the 
doctrine 
of 
boundary 
by 
acquiescence, see Hand & Smith, supra note 18, § 6.10; Clark on 
Surveying and Boundaries § 20.03 (7th ed. 1998); Lawrence 
Berger, Unification of the Doctrines of Adverse Possession and 
Practical Location in the Establishment of Boundaries, 78 Neb. 
L. Rev. 1, 11-15.   
21 Ross v. Severance, 198 Wis. 489, 491-92, 224 N.W. 711 
(1929) (quoting 9 Corp. Jur. 242); Lundgreen v. Stratton, 73 
Wis. 659, 663, 41 N.W. 1012 (1889).   
For a discussion of the doctrine of practical location of 
boundaries, see Clark on Surveying and Boundaries § 20.05 (7th 
ed. 1998). 
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
15 
 
controversy concerning the line; and (3) an agreement that 
resolves the dispute.   
¶35 The circuit court in the present case seemed to use 
the word "acquiescence" in the evidentiary sense as well as in 
reference to the legal doctrine of acquiescence.   The circuit 
court used the word "acquiescence" in the evidentiary sense, 
concluding that it is "necessary to look to extrinsic evidence 
[to determine the boundary line] and this court believes the 
best evidence available are the lines of occupation and 
possession. . . . [L]ongstanding common usage and acquiescence 
to ownership and possession to real estate have occurred in the 
area of the Henn Road in Ashland County, near the common 
sections of 4, 5, 8, and 9."   
¶36 The circuit court appears to have also concluded that 
the legal doctrine of acquiescence is applicable in the present 
case because the boundary line is in dispute and cannot be 
determined by the legal description in the deed.   
¶37 In contrast, the Boersts contend that the legal 
doctrine of acquiescence does not apply in the present case.  
The Boersts contend that the deed is unambiguous and therefore 
extrinsic evidence should not have been used to determine the 
boundary line.22 
                                                 
22 In Chandelle Enterprises, LLC v. XLNT Dairy Farm, Inc., 
2005 WI App 110, ¶16, 282 Wis. 2d 806, 699 N.W.2d 241, the court 
of appeals concluded that "because, in this case at least, the 
description by quarter section is not ambiguous, the doctrine of 
acquiescence does not apply."   
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
16 
 
¶38 The case law relating to the doctrine of acquiescence 
is not consistently stated or applied.23  The concept of 
acquiescence in the evidentiary sense is often used in cases 
resolving conflicts between a landmark and a survey.  We 
therefore turn to this line of cases. 
¶39 After reviewing the case law, we conclude that the 
instant case most closely approximates and is governed by the 
principles set forth in boundary dispute cases in which a survey 
is in conflict with a longstanding landmark.  In these cases, 
                                                                                                                                                             
If parties acquiesce in "a wrong boundary, when the true 
boundary can be ascertained from the deed, it is treated both in 
law and equity as a mistake and neither party is estopped from 
claiming to the true line."  Hartung v. Witte, 59 Wis. 285, 289, 
18 N.W. 175 (1884) (quoted with approval in Chandelle, 282 
Wis. 2d 806, ¶11).  
See also cases cited in note 16, supra.  
23 Citing Buza v. Wojtalewicz, 48 Wis. 2d 557, 563, 180 
N.W.2d 556 (1970), the court of appeals in the present case 
viewed the doctrine of acquiescence as a court-adopted doctrine 
supplementing the doctrine of adverse possession.  According to 
the 
court 
of 
appeals, 
adverse 
or 
hostile 
intent 
is 
a 
prerequisite 
of 
adverse 
possession, 
and 
the 
doctrine 
of 
acquiescence substitutes mutual acquiescence for adverse or 
hostile intent.  Northrup, 325 Wis. 2d 445, ¶9.   
Several cases have recognized, however, that hostile intent 
"does not mean a deliberate, willful, unfriendly animus.  If the 
elements of open, notorious, continuous and exclusive possession 
are satisfied, the law presumes the element of hostile intent."  
Burkhardt v. Smith, 17 Wis. 2d 132, 139, 115 N.W.2d 540 (1962). 
In Peter H. & Barbara Steuck Living Trust v. Easley, 2010 
WI App 74, ¶34, 325 Wis. 2d 455, 785 N.W.2d 631, the court of 
appeals declared that "it is not clear whether the doctrine of 
acquiescence remains a distinct means of proving adverse 
possession when, as here, there is no issue concerning the 
twenty-year time period." 
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
17 
 
the survey raises questions about the accuracy of a landmark 
that has generally been accepted by property owners as the 
boundary line for a substantial period of time. 
¶40 Cases involving this type of dispute ordinarily have 
involved a conflict between a survey and a longstanding fence 
line.  The applicable principles in these cases do not, however, 
depend on the fact that the landmark is a fence.  A fence in 
these cases is analogous to any landmark allegedly marking a 
boundary between adjoining landowners.24   
IV 
¶41 We turn to the survey/fence cases for guidance in 
resolving the boundary dispute in the present case.  
¶42 In the survey/fence cases, a circuit court first 
determines whether the boundary line can be determined from the 
deed and original monuments or markers.  If the boundary line 
cannot be so determined, the circuit court looks to the best 
evidence 
of 
the 
boundary 
line. 
 
The 
circuit 
court's 
                                                 
24 See, e.g., Brew v. Nugent, 136 Wis. 336, 339, 117 N.W. 
813 (1908) (evidence of acquiescence in the location of a fence 
since torn down along with "evidence that a stone existed at the 
easterly end of such fence some years after it was constructed, 
which people regarded as a landmark, was sufficient to warrant 
the conclusion that such old fence was properly placed and the 
disputed boundary 50 feet south of it, notwithstanding the very 
positive evidence of the surveyor . . . ."; James O. Pearson, 
Annotation, Fence as Factor in Fixing Location of Boundary Line, 
7 A.L.R. 4th 53, § 1[a] (1981 & Cumulative Supp.) ("Since the 
applicable principles do not vary depending on the nature of the 
barrier claimed to have become a boundary, the term 'fence' is 
used generically to denote all barriers allegedly marking 
boundaries between adjoining landowners, without regard to 
whether the barrier was man-made or natural."). 
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
18 
 
determination of the best evidence locating the boundary line in 
the survey/fence cases is essentially a finding of fact.25  An 
appellate court does not set aside findings of fact unless they 
are clearly erroneous.  Wis. Stat. § 805.17(2).26   
¶43 The survey/fence analysis is demonstrated in Welton v. 
Poynter, 96 Wis. 346, 71 N.W. 597 (1897), in which a fence line 
that existed for 30 years was thought to mark the boundary line.  
A survey was performed under which the boundary line did not 
coincide with the fence line.  It was not established, however, 
how the new survey line was located, nor whether any original 
stakes or monuments were used.  The court, faced with choosing 
between the fence and the survey as the boundary line, relied on 
evidence of undisputed occupancy rather than the survey.  The 
court was unwilling to disturb the existing understanding of the 
property owners.  The court explained its reasoning as follows:  
[T]he evidence of undisputed occupation and fencing in 
accordance with [the originally surveyed] line for 
about 30 years, not only of the piece of land in 
controversy, but of other parcels of land in that 
immediate neighborhood, raises a presumption that the 
line so recognized is the true line . . . . So strong 
a presumption is thus raised in the present case that 
we do not regard it as overcome or seriously weakened 
by the simple fact that upon a resurvey, based upon no 
                                                 
25 Nagel v. Philipsen, 4 Wis. 2d 104, 107, 90 N.W.2d 151 
(1958).  See also Okemo Mountain, Inc. v. Lysobey, 883 A.2d 757, 
760 (Vt. 2005). 
26 The clearly erroneous standard of review for findings of 
fact made by a circuit court is essentially the same as the 
great weight and clear preponderance test.  State v. Hambly, 
2008 WI 10, ¶16 n.7, 307 Wis. 2d 98, 745 N.W.2d 48.  
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
19 
 
original monument, another line several rods distant 
is established. 
Welton, 96 Wis. at 347.  
¶44 In Brew v. Nugent, 136 Wis. 336, 117 N.W. 813 (1908), 
the court was again asked to determine whether a longstanding 
fence line or a survey should be used to establish the boundary 
line.  The court determined, based on what it viewed as settled 
law, that the original location of monuments must always 
prevail, but that when those monuments have disappeared "they 
must be established by the best evidence the nature of the 
situation is susceptible of."  Brew, 136 Wis. at 338.  The court 
concluded that extrinsic evidence, such as an old fence, may 
have so much greater probative force than more recent surveying 
measurements "as to prevail over the latter as a matter of 
law . . . ."  Brew, 136 Wis. at 339.  
¶45 A more recent case involving a boundary dispute 
predicated on the discrepancy between an ancient fence line and 
a survey supports using an evidentiary analysis.  See Grell v. 
Ganser, 255 Wis. 381, 39 N.W.2d 397 (1949).  
¶46 The court was prescient in City of Racine v. Emerson, 
85 Wis. 80, 55 N.W. 177 (1893), in providing principles that 
remain sound more than a century after the decision was written.  
In that case, a resurvey commissioned by the City of Racine 
created 
boundary 
lines 
that 
did 
not 
coincide 
with 
the 
defendant's existing fence line, which he alleged was set along 
the original stakes laying out the street running on the 
boundary of his property.     
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
20 
 
¶47 The City of Racine court concluded that the answer to 
the pertinent question——where is the boundary line?——must be 
established by the best evidence available.  It declared that 
"monuments set by the original survey in the ground, and named 
or referred to in the plat, are the highest and best evidence."27  
If there are no such monuments, then stakes set by the surveyor 
or soon thereafter are the next best evidence.28  Buildings, 
fences, and other substantial improvements built according to 
the stakes laid out while they were present are the next best 
evidence of the line.29        
¶48 The City of Racine court predicted that original 
monuments will be lost or destroyed and that the time will come 
when the best evidence to establish property lines may be long 
continued occupation: 
The time will soon come when [the boundary line] will 
have been lost by the destruction of all monuments, 
natural or artificial, and by the death of the old 
inhabitants.  Then resort must be had to evidence of 
lesser degree to establish ancient boundaries, and 
long-continued occupation with respect to unchanged 
lines, and reputation, even, may be the best evidence 
available.   
City of Racine, 85 Wis. at 88-89.  
¶49 The time has come in the present case to apply the 
rule that an ancient fence (or other landmark) may be competent 
                                                 
27 City of Racine v. Emerson, 85 Wis. 80, 86-87, 55 N.W. 177 
(1893).   
28 Id. 
29 Id. 
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
21 
 
evidence of the location of the boundary when original monuments 
cannot be found.30     
¶50 The circuit court made findings of fact that the 
original section corner monument between Sections 4, 5, 8, and 9 
in Township 41 North, Range 1 West, Ashland County, Wisconsin no 
longer exists; that no competent evidence is before the court to 
determine where the original section corner monument was 
originally placed; that no clear and convincing evidence exists 
that the resetting of the corners in the 1912 Parker survey was 
correct; that neither party has shown by clear and convincing 
evidence where the actual boundary line exists.  All of these 
findings of fact are supported by the record.     
                                                 
30 Nys 
v. 
Biemeret, 
44 
Wis. 104, 
110 
(1878) 
further 
illustrates this rule that when the actual boundary line cannot 
be determined, the circuit court must use extrinsic evidence to 
determine the location of the boundary line: "If original 
monuments can be found and identified, they will govern. . . . 
If no certain monuments can be found . . . a lesser degree of 
testimony may be resorted to; and long continued occupancy and 
acquiescence, and even reputation and hearsay as to the 
boundaries, may have weight." 
See also Wunnicke v. Dederich, 160 Wis. 462, 467, 152 
N.W. 139 (1915) ("Under the repeated decisions of this court the 
ancient fence lines around this parcel of land, maintained as 
they were for at least thirty and probably fifty years, should 
be taken as fixing the correct boundaries of the tract."). 
See also 10 David A. Thomas ed., Thompson on Real Property: 
Second Thomas Edition § 90.03(a)(7), at 628 (1998) ("Where the 
exact location of a boundary line is not definitely known, a 
dispute involving the boundary line must be determined by 
looking to the conduct of the parties with reference thereto.  
Thus, long acquiescence by the owners of adjoining lands in the 
location of the dividing line between their lands may, in 
effect, establish such line . . . .") (citations omitted).   
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
22 
 
¶51 The Boersts rely upon the 2005 survey (based on a 
survey performed in 1912) using a corner marker that was found 
to establish a common corner for Sections 4, 5, 8, and 9.  This 
2005 
survey 
disrupted 
the 
long-honored 
boundary 
line 
in 
reference to the center line of Henn Road. 
¶52 Based on these facts, the circuit court properly 
focused its analysis on what constitutes the best evidence 
available to establish the boundary line.  The best evidence of 
the boundary line in the present case is, as the circuit court 
found, the long occupation of the properties by the parties to 
the present case, their neighbors and their predecessors in 
title.  According to the record, for more than a century the 
center line of Henn Road has been honored as the boundary 
between the properties by not only the parties in this suit (and 
their predecessors in interest), but also generally throughout 
the surrounding area and by the government.  
¶53 Henn Road is the landmark that was laid out closest in 
time to the original government survey.  The records of the 
boundary dispute litigation between neighbors owning property in 
Sections 8 and 5 in 1909 and 1917 (involving the 1912 survey 
relied upon by the Boersts) provide supporting evidence that 
Henn Road was reputed to lie on the boundary line and that the 
center line of Henn Road has been relied upon by the property 
owners in the area as the boundary line for many, many years.  
Finally, as stated in City of Racine, resurveys may be 
unreliable as evidence of a boundary line.  City of Racine, 85 
Wis. at 86-87.         
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
23 
 
¶54 The record supports the circuit court's determination 
that the center line of Henn Road has been relied upon by the 
government and private owners alike as the boundary line between 
sections 8 and 9 in Township 41 North, Range 1 West, Ashland 
County, Wisconsin.  The evidence in the record prior to the 
events leading to this litigation supports a finding of long-
time undisturbed possession of property based upon the center 
line of Henn Road as the boundary line.  
¶55 The court's conclusion in City of Racine applies here:  
Boundary lines may be established by "practical location and 
undisturbed possession for a great many years, and there does 
not seem to have been any necessity to disturb them at this late 
day."  City of Racine, 85 Wis. at 89-90.  
¶56 In sum, in determining the boundary line by evaluating 
the evidence of common usage and acquiescence and not by using 
the legal doctrine of acquiescence, the circuit court applied 
the correct legal analysis in the present case.  After 
concluding that the actual boundary line could not be determined 
from the deed and original monuments or markers, the circuit 
court evaluated the evidence and established the boundary line 
based upon the best evidence available.  There are sufficient 
facts in the record upon which the circuit court based its 
findings that the actual boundary line could not be determined 
from the deed and the original monument or markers and that the 
best evidence supports the center line of Henn Road as the 
boundary line separating the parcels owned by the parties to 
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
24 
 
this action.  The best evidence was not the successive surveys 
but common usage and acquiescence.     
By the Court.—The decision of the Court of Appeals is 
affirmed.        
 
No. 
2009AP1559   
 
 
 
1