Linebaugh v. Gibson
2020 UT App 108
| Utah Ct. App. | 2020Background:
- A v‑mesh fence built in 1951 ran roughly 2 feet south of the Gibson Property’s deed line; Linebaugh and predecessors used the ground up to that fence as backyard for decades.
- In 1996 the Gibsons repaired/rebuilt the fence; some middle posts were moved slightly north but end posts stayed in place and neighbors did not perceive a boundary shift.
- In 2015 the Gibsons (through contractor Negrette) removed the old fence and built a new cement retaining wall ~2–2.5 feet north (still within the Gibsons’ deed line but into the area Linebaugh and predecessors had occupied).
- Linebaugh sued for boundary by acquiescence, trespass, IIED, assault, and boundary by estoppel; the trial court rejected boundary by acquiescence and trespass, granted summary judgment for defendants on IIED, and denied defendants’ fee request.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed the boundary‑by‑acquiescence and trespass rulings (remanding for damages) but affirmed summary judgment on IIED and affirmed denial of attorney fees to defendants.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boundary by acquiescence (did fence fix boundary?) | Linebaugh: fence served as visible line; mutual acquiescence and >20 years’ occupation establish boundary to the fence. | Gibsons: fence was built to contain animals (not as boundary) and 1996 repairs moved line, breaking the 20‑year period. | Reversed trial court: objective acquiescence established; 20‑year requirement met despite 1996 repairs; boundary extends to the fence line. |
| Trespass | Building the wall and moving/transplanting shrubs beyond the v‑mesh fence invaded Linebaugh’s possession. | No trespass because deeded line remained and any intrusion was de minimis; trial court had correctly held no boundary at fence. | Because boundary is at the fence, the wall and related acts were trespass; remanded to calculate compensatory/nominal and possible punitive damages. |
| IIED (summary judgment) | Defendants’ threats, hostile behavior, and harassing texts caused severe emotional distress. | Conduct not extreme; plaintiff admitted no new or increased medical treatment, no work interference, and stipulated facts undermining severity. | Affirmed summary judgment for defendants: as a matter of law plaintiff failed to show severe emotional distress. |
| Attorney fees (cross‑appeal under Utah Code §78B‑5‑825) | Linebaugh: claims were brought in good faith. | Defendants: claims were without merit and brought in bad faith; seek fees and sanctions. | Affirmed denial of fees: boundary/trespass claims had merit; court’s finding of no bad faith on other claims not clearly erroneous; no appellate sanctions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Essential Botanical Farms, LC v. Kay, 270 P.3d 430 (Utah 2011) (acquiescence is an objective inquiry; parties’ conduct controls).
- Anderson v. Fautin, 379 P.3d 1186 (Utah 2016) (clarified boundary‑by‑acquiescence doctrine and distinguished occupation vs. acquiescence).
- RHN Corp. v. Veibell, 96 P.3d 935 (Utah 2004) (acquiescence may be inferred from silence or conduct).
- Van Dyke v. Chappell, 818 P.2d 1023 (Utah 1991) (a fence can serve both as livestock barrier and as a boundary).
- Staker v. Ainsworth, 785 P.2d 417 (Utah 1990) (fence treated as boundary where owners used fenced areas consistently).
- Purkey v. Roberts, 285 P.3d 1242 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (defines trespass liability and damages principles).
- Wilson v. Sanders, 447 P.3d 1240 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (examples of evidentiary showing sufficient for severe emotional distress).