Kubik v. Hauck, 982 N.W.2d 599

Kubik and Hauck own adjacent quarters in Section 2, Dunn County; Kubik’s family owned his tract since 1911; Hauck bought the neighbor NW1/4 in 2018 from the Tony Sickler Trust.
An old east–west wire fence ran near the recorded property line; after surveying, Hauck discovered the fence lay inside his property, removed it, and erected a new fence on the surveyed line.
Kubik sued to quiet title to the strip between the original fence and the new fence, asserting adverse possession and acquiescence, and claimed trespass/damages; Hauck counterclaimed to quiet title in his favor.
Evidence showed the original fence dated to about the 1940s, was used as a livestock barrier, was maintained intermittently by both sides (owners, renters), and posts were moved over time for erosion/maintenance.
The district court found Kubik honestly believed the fence was the boundary but concluded Kubik failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Hauck or his predecessors mutually recognized the fence as the boundary for 20 years; the court quieted title for Hauck and denied damages (apart from nominal damages the court should have awarded).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the original fence established a boundary by acquiescence	Kubik: fence was the long‑recognized boundary and met the 20‑year mutual recognition requirement	Hauck: fence was merely a barrier to contain livestock, not a mutually recognized boundary	Court: No acquiescence; Kubik failed to prove mutual recognition by clear and convincing evidence
Whether the district court improperly relied on a telephone easement to reject acquiescence	Kubik: easement was wrongly treated as evidence that predecessors did not own/disavow disputed land	Hauck: easement (and fact that Trust acted as owner) supports lack of mutual recognition	Court: Any implication about the easement was immaterial; even without it the finding of no mutual recognition is supported by the record
Whether Kubik proved damages for trespass (mowing/cutting hay)	Kubik: Hauck trespassed and cut hay — damages owed	Hauck: any cutting was minimal and did not cause provable loss	Court: Trial court found no provable damages; should have awarded nominal damages but failure to do so is not reversible error

McCarvel v. Perhus, 952 N.W.2d 86 (explains acquiescence standard and clearly erroneous review)
Sauter v. Miller, 907 N.W.2d 370 (acquiescence found where fence was mutually recognized and uncontradicted)
Brown v. Brodell, 756 N.W.2d 779 (fence as mere barrier supports rejecting acquiescence)
Gimbel v. Magrum, 947 N.W.2d 891 (appellate review upholds controlling findings even if lower court made immaterial misstatements)
Ward v. Shipp, 340 N.W.2d 14 (prior case finding sufficient evidence of fence as boundary)
Kuntz v. Leiss, 952 N.W.2d 35 (failure to award nominal damages not reversible)