Freestone v. Walton
2025 UT App 41
Utah Ct. App.2025Background
- The Freestones and the Waltons own adjacent properties in Utah, with a backyard boundary in dispute.
- Both families initially mistaken about the true property line, relying on a contractor’s markings for landscaping and subsequent fence installation, with neither party conducting a survey or consulting property records.
- In 2012, the Freestones built a fence along the assumed boundary (the landscaping line), with apparent consent but no objection from the Walton Predecessors.
- Later, an actual survey revealed the fence encroached onto what was, by record, the Walton property, creating a disputed strip over thirty feet wide at one end.
- The Freestones filed suit in 2019, relying solely on the doctrine of boundary by agreement (not acquiescence), seeking to quiet title to the disputed strip.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Waltons, holding no express agreement settled a boundary dispute; the Freestones appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an express boundary-by-agreement existed | The fence was agreed to by both parties as the boundary line | No express agreement to resolve a disputed boundary existed | No evidence of an express agreement settling a boundary dispute—just mutual mistake/acquiescence |
| Whether mutual assumption can satisfy the agreement | Parties mutually recognized the fence/landscaping line as boundary | Mistaken mutual assumption isn't an agreement to settle dispute | Mutual assumption, without evidence of a dispute or explicit agreement, is insufficient |
| Distinction between boundary by agreement vs acquiescence | The facts support boundary by agreement | The claim, at most, supports acquiescence, not agreement | Facts fit boundary by acquiescence, not boundary by agreement; doctrines must not be conflated |
| Summary judgment correctness | Factual disputes should preclude summary judgment | No genuine issue—no agreement actually resolving a dispute | Summary judgment for Waltons is affirmed; no factual issue requiring trial on boundary by agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Bahr v. Imus, 250 P.3d 56 (Utah 2011) (discusses and distinguishes elements of boundary by agreement and boundary by acquiescence)
- Anderson v. Fautin, 379 P.3d 1186 (Utah 2016) (explains the differences and requirements for boundary by agreement and acquiescence)
- Turley v. Childs, 515 P.3d 942 (Utah Ct. App. 2022) (standard for summary judgment review in Utah Courts)