Court Opinion

ID: 9846780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:48:19.646491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:49.224840
License: Public Domain

CALLISTER, Justice
(concurring in result).
I concur in the result with the majority opinion that the summary judgment should be reversed and the case remanded for trial. However, from the facts presented, it appears that the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence is not applicable.
This doctrine is premised on either an express parol agreement by adjoining owners fixing the boundary or the court will imply such an agreement by indulging “in a fiction that at some time in the past the adjoining owners were in dispute or uncertain as to the location of the true boundary and that they settled their differences by agreeing upon the fence or other monument as the dividing line between their properties.” 1
This doctrine cannot be invoked, if from the evidence there is nothing to imply that the fence was built pursuant to an agreement between adjoining owners, such as, the person building the fence intended to build it upon his own land and hence did not consult his neighbor.
In the Ringwood case at page 123 of the Utah Report, at page 1055 of 269 P.2d, this court cited 3 Utah Law Review at page 514 and its analysis of Boundary by Acquiescence and quoted its conclusion that the presumption of an implied agreement may be rebutted by “ ‘ * * * (1) proof there actually was no agreement by the parties or (2) by proof that there could not have been a proper agreement. Factors showing the latter include the following: (a) no dispute or uncertainty over boundary, (b) line not intended as a boundary, (c) no parties available to make an agreement and (d) possibly mistake or inadvertence in locating the boundary line.’ ” (Emphasis added.)
*329In the Ringwood case, this court concluded with the admonition:
“ * * * To hold that the defendant’s belief, reliance, and occupation up to the fence line, without more, are controlling in a boundary dispute would be to ignore the statutory guides for adverse possession since she did not pay taxes on that portion of land which she claims.”
In the instant action, there are facts that indicate the common grantor of the parties constructed the fence while he still owned the entire parcel and that he subsequently conveyed defendants’ portion to their predecessor in interest. Under these circumstances the only possible inference is that the person building the fence intended to build it upon his own land, since there were no parties available to make an agreement settling the boundary. The doctrine of boundary by acquiescence cannot be utilized as a subterfuge to avoid compliance with the statutory provisions for adverse possession.

. Ringwood v. Bradford, 2 Utah 2d 119, 122, 269 P.2d 1053 (1954).