Opinion ID: 2102583
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Practical Location.

Text: Lowthers also urge upon us the doctrine of practical location, contending that the Kendall-Unash boundary should be fixed by the 1976 Brummer location survey. They argue that even though that inaccurate survey marked the boundary many feet west of the boundary described in the deeds, the parties treated that monumented line as their boundary and it thereby became the true location for conveyance purposes. They further contend that if that was the true line at the time of conveyance, Lowthers breached no covenant of warranty in conveying the property to their grantees. The doctrine of practical location, as recognized and defined in Iowa cases, is grounded on principles of express agreement, estoppel and equity. Trimpl v. Meyer, 246 Iowa 1245, 1253-54, 71 N.W.2d 437, 441-42 (1955). Under Iowa law the doctrine must carefully be distinguished from the closely related doctrine of acquiescence. Iowa Code section 650.6 (1983) provides as a prerequisite to establishing boundaries by acquiescence that such have been recognized and acquiesced in by the parties or their grantees for a period of ten consecutive years. Acquiescence does not fit the facts of this case because the Kendall and Unash properties have been divided by a boundary for fewer than ten years. For a boundary to be fixed by practical location, the true boundary must first be disputed, indefinite and uncertain, and the parties must have the intent to settle the boundary line in dispute. Trimpl v. Meyer, 246 Iowa at 1254, 71 N.W.2d at 442. In addition, the grantors and grantees involved must all be aware of a boundary which is clearly marked on the land and which is evident or pointed out to them at the time of the conveyance. The marked boundary will then control if the parties accept that marked boundary by their words or actions which amount to express approval of the marked boundary. Schauland v. Schmaltz, 252 Iowa 426, 430, 107 N.W.2d 68, 71 (1961); Trimpl v. Meyer, 246 Iowa at 1254, 71 N.W.2d at 442. The doctrine of practical location is inapplicable to the facts in this case for several reasons. At the time Unashes and thereafter Kendalls acquired their properties, they were unaware that the boundary between them was indefinite or in dispute. To the contrary, they had reason to believe that their deed descriptions, which were mutually consistent, were also compatible with the few markings of a boundary between their properties. They had no intent to settle a dispute at that time because they knew of none. Secondly, the boundary according to the inaccurate Brummer survey was not clearly marked out on the land. Finally, Lowthers have not shown by evidence in this record that their grantees, by their words or conduct, entered into any form of express boundary agreement prior to or at the time of Lowthers' conveyances to them. See Trimpl v. Meyer, 246 Iowa at 1254, 71 N.W.2d at 442. We conclude that the trial court properly rejected the contention that the boundary should be established in accordance with the doctrine of practical location. In rejecting Lowthers' position on the issues of reformation and practical location we necessarily affirm that portion of the decree in which the trial court decided where the boundary lying between the Kendall and Unash properties should be located. Lowthers have offered no other theory for changing the boundary fixed by the decree, and neither Kendalls nor Unashes have appealed from that portion of the decree. Left to be decided is the question whether the decree not only quieted title fairly and equitably but also fairly and equitably determined the Kendall and Unash damage claim against the Lowthers.