Huck v. Kens House, 511 P.3d 1220

Huck bought an apartment parcel in 2012; an old "pig‑wire" fence (remnants) ran north–south near the western edge of the lot but did not cover the southwestern corner. A narrow, approximately 2.5‑foot wide strip (the Disputed Strip) lay between the fence remnants and the true surveyed line.
Ken’s House purchased the adjoining corner lot in 2016, obtained a municipal setback variance, and built a detached two‑car garage in late 2018 that encroached partly into the Disputed Strip as shown by a survey.
Huck sued to quiet title to the Disputed Strip under the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence and alleged trespass by Ken’s House contractors during construction.
At a two‑day bench trial, witnesses described the fence as long in disrepair and the side yard as overgrown; limited uses included occasional maintenance, weed‑trimming, and tenant pedestrian use generally, but no clear evidence of distinct, continuous use of the Disputed Strip itself.
Contractor testimony denied any machinery or intentional entry onto Huck’s land; a photograph showed removed fencing materials laid just over the line but did not prove trespass.
The trial court ruled Huck failed to prove the first three elements of boundary by acquiescence (notably occupation) by clear and convincing evidence and therefore dismissed the trespass claim; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Huck proved boundary by acquiescence (elements: visible line, occupation, mutual acquiescence, 20 years)	Remnants of fence marked a visible line; Huck and predecessors used/maintained the side yard up to that line (weed‑trimming, access, tenant use) and thus treated it as the boundary	Fence was in disrepair and overgrown; any use was minimal/passive and not specifically of the Disputed Strip; no evidence that neighbors were put on notice	Affirmed for Ken’s House — Huck failed to prove occupation element by clear and convincing evidence, so boundary by acquiescence fails
Whether Ken’s House trespassed during garage construction	Garage sits partly on the Disputed Strip and contractors placed removed fence materials on Huck’s side; thus trespass occurred	Contractors testified they avoided Huck’s property, did not operate machinery on Huck’s side; the photograph is ambiguous and does not prove intentional entry	Affirmed for Ken’s House — evidence insufficient to show intentional, unpermitted entry; trespass claim fails

Lundahl Farms LLC v. Nielsen, 504 P.3d 735 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) (sets boundary by acquiescence elements and requires clear and convincing proof)
Anderson v. Fautin, 379 P.3d 1186 (Utah 2016) (occupation element corresponds to adverse‑possession style "actual, open, and notorious" notice requirement)
Dean v. Kang Sik Park, 293 P.3d 388 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (occupation must place reasonable neighbor on notice the line is being treated as the boundary)
Bahr v. Imus, 250 P.3d 56 (Utah 2011) (examples of sufficient occupation: farming, structures, improvements, irrigation, livestock)
Staker v. Ainsworth, 785 P.2d 417 (Utah 1990) (doctrine of boundary by acquiescence is narrowly applied)
Linebaugh v. Gibson, 471 P.3d 835 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (standard for trespass and appellate review of bench findings)
RHN Corp. v. Veibell, 96 P.3d 935 (Utah 2004) (appellate review standard for trial court factual findings)
Jacob v. Bate, 358 P.3d 346 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (clarifies when a trial court’s factual findings are "clearly erroneous")