Opinion ID: 1344817
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The suggested additional requirement

Text: The Carters argue that a fifth element should have been established for the court to find a boundary by acquiescence. They maintain that in addition to the above four requirements, the court had to find that the boundary was objectively uncertain, meaning that there had to be no reasonable way to determine the actual legal boundary. They rely on Halladay v. Cluff, 685 P.2d 500, 503-05 (Utah 1984), for support. Staker expressly overruled the objective uncertainty requirement of Halladay. 785 P.2d at 424. We decline to revert to Halladay or to depart from Staker for the reasons stated therein. In sum, we affirm the trial court's finding of boundary by acquiescence.