Bahr v. Imus
2011 Utah LEXIS 35
| Utah | 2011Background
- Bahrs sue to quiet title and challenge the boundary between their property and Imus property.
- Boundary fence installed in 1983 with no precise plat-boundary knowledge; neighbors agreed to locate fences by mutual inexact calculations.
- Imuses and predecessors (Wymans) treated fence as boundary; landscaping and improvements proceeded.
- Dispute escalated over a Russian olive tree; Bahrs demanded removal and they refused to pay.
- Surveys showed discrepancies between plat boundary and fence location ( Bahrs front 0.2 ft; back 4.7 ft; Imuses front 1.12 ft; back 4.37 ft).
- District court granted summary judgment to Imuses on boundary by estoppel, later affirmed by the court of appeals; Utah Supreme Court reversed on the standard and held boundary by agreement as the basis for judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether boundary can be resolved under estoppel, acquiescence, or agreement. | Bahrs contend estoppel or acquiescence support enforceable boundary. | Imuses contend boundary by agreement is valid and dispositive; estoppel/acquiescence defenses fail. | Boundary by agreement valid; judgment affirmed on this ground. |
| What is the proper standard of review for summary judgment in a boundary dispute? | Deferential review should apply to mixed questions. | Deferential review appropriate given estoppel context. | De novo review governs summary judgment; no deference to trial court. |
| If an express oral boundary agreement exists, are long acquiescence requirements necessary? | A long acquiescence period is required. | An express oral agreement suffices; no long acquiescence requirement. | Long acquiescence not required where there is an express boundary agreement. |
| Do four elements of boundary by agreement apply to successors in interest? | Unclear if successors can be bound by original agreement. | Sufficient demarcation and notice to successors ensure binding. | All four elements satisfied; successors bound by the boundary by agreement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blanchard v. Smith, 255 P.2d 729 (Utah 1953) (rejected long acquiescence requirement for boundary by agreement)
- Tripp v. Bagley, 276 P.912 (Utah 1928) (estoppel requires affirmative misstatement and reliance)
- Staker v. Ainsworth, 785 P.2d 417 (Utah 1990) (distinguishes boundary by acquiescence from boundary by agreement; long acquiescence not required for agreement)
- Hummel v. Young, 265 P.2d 410 (Utah 1953) (establishment of boundary by agreement; parol agreement followed by possession is permissible)
- Brown v. Milliner, 232 P.2d 202 (Utah 1951) (parol boundary agreement can bind successors with proper demarcation)
- Irizarry, 945 P.2d 676 (Utah 1997) (discusses deferential review in mixed questions; not controlling for summary judgment)
- Staker v. Ainsworth, 785 P.2d 417 (Utah 1990) (fourth element acquiescence; contemplates twenty-year period)