303 P.3d 1231
Idaho2013Background
- boundary line dispute between Sims and Daker over the boundary separating their properties in Clearwater County; Deeded Line described in deeds as boundary, with Simses claiming Parcel west of Deeded Line; Parcel is ~3 acres triangular with Deeded Line on east, a fence line, and Highway 11 right-of-way as borders; 2009 survey by Hollibaugh showed Parcel lies entirely within Daker deed; Sims alleged boundary by agreement based on fence line and prior statements by Daker; district court found boundary uncertain and that fence line was the boundary by agreement, quieting title to the Parcel in Sims; on appeal, Idaho Supreme Court reviews for substantial evidence and legal conclusions; the district court’s decision was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fence line is boundary by agreement | Sims: fence treated as boundary; no one disputed it; long-standing practice supports boundary | Daker: fence deviates from Deeded Line; not reasonable to infer boundary | Yes; fence line constitutes boundary by agreement |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Sims: entitlement under § 12-121 and Rule 54(e) | Daker: no merit; claims not developed | Not awarded; fee request abandoned |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Haley, 124 Idaho 870 (1993) (two-element boundary-by-agreement test; uncertainty and agreement)
- Luсe v. Marble, 142 Idaho 264 (2005) (uncertainty plus lack of evidence to disprove boundary by agreement; Luce restriction on Luce facts)
- Flying Elk Inv., LLC v. Cornwall, 149 Idaho 9 (2010) (long-established fence can establish boundary by agreement despite deviation)
- Luce v. Marble (discussed with details), 127 P.3d 167 (2005) (presumptions from long-standing fence as boundary)