Bahr v. Imus
2011 UT 19
| Utah | 2011Background
- Imus and Bahr properties share a boundary fence installed in the mid-1980s after mutual agreement on fence locations, though exact plat boundaries were unknown.
- Initial fencing was funded and constructed with cooperation among Imus, Daltons (east neighbor), and Wymans (west neighbor), based on approximate measurements aligning with the plat.
- Landscaping, irrigation, trees, and a koi pond were later added by the Imuses along the fence line.
- A dispute arose over the boundary line after the Bahrs acquired the west property, centering on a Russian olive tree and resulting in surveys showing discrepancies with the fence line.
- The Bahrs filed to quiet title and claimed trespass; the Imuses moved for summary judgment on boundary by estoppel or acquiescence, or alternatively boundary by agreement.
- The district court granted summary judgment on equitable estoppel, but the court of appeals ultimately affirmed on the basis of boundary by agreement, albeit after this Court clarified the standard of review and the boundary doctrines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review on summary judgment | Bahrs argue for de novo review of summary judgments. | Imuses seek deference to trial court findings as mixed questions of law/fact. | De novo review; no deference on summary judgment. |
| Whether boundary by estoppel facts support judgment | Bahrs contend estoppel permitted given reliance on neighbor representations. | Imuses contend no affirmative misrepresentation by Bahrs’ predecessors and thus no estoppel. | Estoppel not proven; four-element test not satisfied. |
| Whether boundary by acquiescence applies | Bahrs rely on long-standing acceptance of the line as boundary. | Imuses argue twenty-year period of acquiescence not proven. | Not entitled to judgment under acquiescence due to disputed timing of the period. |
| Whether boundary by agreement applies | Bahrs argue no enforceable agreement established boundary. | Imuses assert there was an express oral agreement with reliance that bound successors. | Summary judgment affirmed on boundary by agreement; four elements satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tripp v. Bagley, 276 P.912 (Utah 1928) (estoppel elements applied to boundary disputes)
- Staker v. Ainsworth, 785 P.2d 417 (Utah 1990) (acquiescence framework and twenty-year rule)
- Blanchard v. Smith, 255 P.2d 729 (Utah 1953) (boundary by agreement serves repose; repudiates long acquiescence prerequisite)
- Hummel v. Young, 265 P.2d 410 (Utah 1953) (recognizes oral boundary agreements when location uncertain and possession follows)