Essential Botanical Farms, LC v. Kay
2011 UT 71
| Utah | 2011Background
- 1955 onward, Andrews (EBF predecessor) and Fowkes (Kay predecessor) occupied adjoining land with a long-standing barbed wire fence marking the boundary.
- For ~50 years, both families farmed up to the fence and treated it as the boundary, with no disputes over land on the other side.
- 1998: Andrews property sold to Essential Botanical Farms (EBF); 2004: Fowkes property sold to Kay.
- In 2004 Kay discovered the record boundary extended beyond the fence and constructed a new fence along the boundary, creating a triangular ~6-acre parcel between the old fence and the new boundary.
- EBF sued Kay for trespass and to quiet title to the disputed six-acre parcel; both sides moved for summary judgment.
- District court quieted title in EBF, ruling boundary by acquiescence required preponderance; appellae challenged both standard and factual conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard of proof governs boundary by acquiescence? | Kay—clear and convincing standard; EBF—preponderance standard. | Kay—preponderance? (as urged by EBF); EBF—preponderance standard due to civil-context norms. | Boundary by acquiescence must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether Kay's predecessors acquiesced to the fence as the boundary despite lack of direct subjective intent evidence. | Kay—no explicit intent; no acquiescence proof. | Kay—objective actions show lack of dispute; mutual acquiescence evidenced. | Yes; mutual acquiescence shown through objective actions, not required subjective intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- RHN Corp. v. Veibell, 2004 UT 60 (Utah 2004) (establishes that absence of direct subjective belief evidence is not fatal to mutual acquiescence)
- Staker v. Ainsworth, 785 P.2d 417 (Utah 1990) (recognition and mutual acquiescence in boundary lines; fences as true boundaries)
- Fuoco v. Williams, 18 Utah 2d 282, 421 P.2d 944 (Utah 1966) (requirement that recognition and acquiescence be mutual)
- Ault v. Holden, 2002 UT 33, 44 P.3d 781 (Utah 2002) (standard for proving boundary by acquiescence; absence of dispute evidence)
- Veibell, ex rel. Veibell v. RHN Corp., 2004 UT 60, 96 P.3d 935 (Utah 2004) (defining acquiescence as recognizing and treating an observable line as boundary)