392 P.3d 175
N.M. Ct. App.2016Background
- Hancock owned west and south parcels in Quay County; fence line bordered Nicoley’s land and cattle crossed at the corner for about 65 years.
- In 2006 Hancock alleged Nicoley moved the fence at the corner, contending the fence line had become the boundary by acquiescence.
- Hancock sought boundary adjudication and possible adverse possession or prescriptive easement; Nicoley denied acquiescence and boundary claims.
- Bench trial in 2010: parties disputed boundary location; 1983 retracement showed fence south of surveyed boundary; nephew co-owner status raised joinder issues.
- District court initially dismissed the boundary adjudication claim and later issued a final judgment inconsistent with prior rulings, granting easement findings and ordering surveys, with final allocation of boundary lines.
- Hancock appealed challenging the boundary determination and procedural handling, including joinder and the scope of adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fence line by acquiescence is the boundary between south parcel and Nicoley | Hancock; fence lines long-used as boundary by acquiescence. | Nicoley; boundary is the surveyed line, not acquiesced fence. | Reversed and remanded; boundary determination by acquiescence unresolved. |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed the boundary adjudication claim and whether that dismissal was memorialized | Hancock relied on district court’s implied dismissal and reliance on prior statements restricting scope. | Nicoley; court could decide only corner issues and not the broader boundary. | Remanded to determine proper scope and memorialization of dismissal. |
| Whether Hancock's nephew as co-owner must be joined as a party | Hancock; nephew is a necessary party under Rule 1-019(A). | Nicoley; joinder not feasible or necessary. | Remanded to determine whether nephew can or should be joined. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. Rhodes, 107 N.M. 96 (1988-NMCA-024) (acquiescence boundary doctrine overview)
- Srader v. Verant, 125 N.M. 521 (1998-NMSC-025) (joinder and indispensable-party principles)
- Gallegos v. Pueblo of Tesuque, 46 P.3d 668 (2002-NMSC-012) (indispensable-parties and boundary clarifications)
- State ex rel. King v. UU Bar Ranch Ltd. P’ship, 205 P.3d 816 (2009-NMSC-010) (boundary determinations and applicability of acquiescence)