Anderson v. Fautin
2016 UT 22
| Utah | 2016Background
- Anderson and Fautin own adjoining parcels in Piute County divided by a long fence; a later survey showed the fence encroached onto Anderson’s title.
- Fautin (and predecessors) used and maintained the land north of the fence continuously for decades; she replaced the fence in 2000 and occupied to the fence since purchase in 1987.
- Anderson bought the southern parcel in 1968 but did not inspect or use it for ~26 years; he commissioned a survey in 2005 and sued in 2007 to quiet title to the strip between the fence and the surveyed line.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Fautin, finding boundary by acquiescence; it viewed Anderson’s nonuse as immaterial to the occupation element.
- The court of appeals affirmed; the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to whether the occupation element requires both adjoining owners to occupy up to the visible line.
- The Supreme Court affirmed: occupancy need only be shown by the claimant up to a visible line such that a reasonable landowner would be put on notice; mutual occupancy by both owners is not required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the occupation element of boundary-by-acquiescence require both adjoining owners to occupy to the visible line? | Anderson: occupation must be mutual—both owners must occupy respective parcels up to the visible line. | Fautin: only claimant must show occupancy up to the visible line; nonclaimant’s occupancy is relevant only to acquiescence. | Held: claimant need only occupy up to visible line to give notice; mutual occupancy is not required. |
| What does "occupation" mean for boundary by acquiescence? | Anderson: (implicit) requires evidence of mutual use to imply boundary recognition. | Fautin: occupation may be actual or constructive and must put the neighbor on notice. | Held: occupation is like adverse possession’s open, notorious use—actual or constructive use sufficient to notify the nonclaimant. |
| Role of nonclaimant’s conduct in acquiescence element? | Anderson: nonclaimant’s non-occupation undermines acquiescence. | Fautin: nonclaimant’s silence or indolence suffices; occupancy by nonclaimant is unnecessary. | Held: acquiescence can be shown by silence/indolence; nonclaimant’s occupation is relevant only to notice/acquiescence, not to the occupation element. |
| Relationship of boundary-by-acquiescence to other doctrines (agreement, adverse possession)? | Anderson: (argues via precedent) prior mutual-occupancy cases support requiring mutual use. | Fautin: modern caselaw aligns boundary-by-acquiescence with adverse possession principles, not parol agreement. | Held: court rejects earlier conflation with boundary-by-agreement; treats boundary-by-acquiescence nearer adverse possession—filling gaps left by agreement and adverse-possession doctrines. |
Key Cases Cited
- Q-2 L.L.C. v. Hughes, 368 P.3d 86 (Utah 2016) (explains relationship among boundary doctrines and recent boundary-by-acquiescence articulation)
- Bahr v. Imus, 250 P.3d 56 (Utah 2011) (sets out four-element test for boundary by acquiescence)
- Staker v. Ainsworth, 785 P.2d 417 (Utah 1990) (discusses doctrine’s policy of stability and avoiding litigation)
- Harding v. Allen, 353 P.2d 911 (Utah 1960) (recognizes constructive occupancy and notice-based approach to occupation element)
- Allred ex rel. Jensen v. Allred, 182 P.3d 337 (Utah 2008) (describes adverse-possession elements and notice function)
- Holmes v. Judge, 87 P. 1009 (Utah 1906) (early case that conflated acquiescence with implied agreement and mutual occupancy)
- Young v. Hyland, 108 P. 1124 (Utah 1910) (early articulation referencing occupation of "respective premises," supporting mutual-occupancy framing)