947 N.W.2d 891
N.D.2020Background
- Dispute over two adjoining parcels in Emmons County: Gimbel owns the north parcel; the Magrums own the south parcel.
- A trail runs near the common boundary; the Magrums (and predecessors) annually cut and removed hay south of the trail and built a fence south of the trail.
- After the fence was built, Gimbel commissioned a survey showing the true property line south of the trail and inside the Magrums’ fenced area; Gimbel recorded the plat and demanded removal of the fence.
- Gimbel sued to quiet title; the Magrums counterclaimed that they owned the disputed strip by adverse possession or acquiescence.
- The district court held for Gimbel, finding the Magrums did not acquire title by adverse possession or acquiescence; the Magrums appealed.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, deferring to the district court’s factual findings and credibility determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse possession | Gimbel argues the Magrums did not possess adversely or continuously | Magrums claim annual haying (and predecessors’ conduct) met elements for adverse possession | Court held Magrums failed to prove adverse possession; annual haying was not cultivation/continuous/hostile; owner had permitted haying |
| Acquiescence (boundary by mutual mistake) | Gimbel argues he never recognized the trail as the boundary | Magrums contend both sides (and predecessors) mistakenly recognized the trail as the boundary for 20+ years | Court held no acquiescence; insufficient clear and convincing evidence of mutual recognition of the trail as the boundary; credibility findings support district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Larson v. Tonneson, 933 N.W.2d 84 (bench-trial factual findings reviewed for clear error; legal conclusions fully reviewable)
- Sauter v. Miller, 907 N.W.2d 370 (district court is the determiner of credibility in bench trials)
- Moody v. Sundley, 868 N.W.2d 491 (acquiescence doctrine and mutual-recognition requirement explained)
- Gruebele v. Geringer, 640 N.W.2d 454 (elements of adverse possession: actual, visible, continuous, notorious, distinct, hostile)
- Fischer v. Berger, 710 N.W.2d 886 (acquiescence may supply title where adverse intent is lacking due to honest boundary mistake)
- Brown v. Brodell, 756 N.W.2d 779 (requires clear and convincing evidence both parties recognized a line as a boundary for at least 20 years)