Court Opinion

ID: 9687637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:40:32.449572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:29.699342
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice, Retired
(specially concurring).
We have, before us, the consideration of a “mistaken boundary line” case. SDCL 15-3-13 is the key statute upon which we must focus.
Essentially, Lewises did not know they technically owned a “sliver” or “wedge” of land until a survey was completed in 1990. Moorheads were unknowledgeable that they had no legal title to said sliver or wedge. The sliver of land was bounded by a prominent white fence which they had always believed marked the eastern boundary of the west twenty feet of Lot A, and thus their property. Peace prevailed with these neighbors until the survey. Spawned by the survey, litigation erupted first in small claims court, and ultimately a legal struggle in the Supreme Court of this state with the Lewises advocating the circuit court erred. On Issue II, I fully concur, but specially concur on Issue I to elaborate on some recent authority in this Court, unmentioned in the majority opinion.
Frank Biegelmeier, our first Chief Justice of the Unified Judicial System, after his retirement, found himself in a situation almost identical to the case at hand. In 1987, he rightfully won his case. See Johnson v. Biegelmeier, 409 N.W.2d 379 (S.D.1987). As I believe that case to be strong precedent for our holding in this case, I call it to the reader’s attention.
As before us, SDCL 15-3-13 was relied upon in Biegelmeier in the rationale of our decision. The facts are extremely parallel to the case now under consideration.
*8• Biegelmeier’s fence encroached upon Johnson’s property.
• Biegelmeier claimed ownership of the land in question by adverse possession.
• Biegelmeier did not have title to the land in dispute.
• The fence line existed at the time Bie-gelmeier purchased the property in 1944. (Here, the fence line existed before October, 1971, the date Moorheads took possession.)
• Biegelmeier prevailed, although he had no legal title (Johnsons acquired title to the land in dispute in 1979), because (1) the disputed area (2.43 acres) was enclosed by a fence and (2) he possessed it for more than twenty years. Thus, he established title by adverse possession. The standard of proof, we held, was “clear and convincing.” Again, we follow the same quantum of proof in the present case.