Neff v. Sandtrax, Inc.
243 Or. App. 485
| Or. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Neifert owned both plaintiffs’ and defendants’ parcels, creating a thin boundary strip between old Highway 101 and railroad land; the boundary could be at the BLM corner or the Buckingham corner, affecting about 0.12 acres.
- Neifert represented to defendants that the boundary followed the line marked by flags and a fence and intended defendants to rely on that representation.
- Defendants constructed a fence and used the disputed area in their business after purchasing, based on Neifert’s boundary representation.
- Plaintiffs later purchased their parcel, learned of potential boundary issues, and hired Estabrook to survey; Estabrook identified two possible corner locations.
- Plaintiffs negotiated a price reduction due to boundary questions but did not obtain a binding agreement or inquire further about Neifert’s representation; the trial court held boundary by estoppel in defendants’ favor, which the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Neifert estopped from denying the boundary as represented to defendants? | Neifert’s mistake or misrepresentation should not estop him; there was no reliance by defendants proven. | Defendants relied on Neifert’s boundary representation when purchasing and using the land. | Yes; Neifert is estopped; boundary defined by the representation. |
| Did plaintiffs have inquiry notice binding them to Neifert’s representation? | Plaintiffs had evidence (flags, fence) and a survey showing two possible corners but lacked independent inquiry about the basis of the belief. | Purchasers are bound where inquiry would have disclosed the representation; plaintiffs had notice. | Yes; plaintiffs had inquiry notice and are bound by the representation. |
| Does Talbot v. Smith bar estoppel for mistake in boundary representations? | Talbot holds that mistake cannot give rise to estoppel. | Talbot is distinguishable; here the misrepresentation was tied to inducing purchase and was treated as estoppel under Clark/Riesland. | Talbot distinguished; estoppel applies under Clark and Riesland. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Hindman, 46 Or. 67, 79 P. 56 (Or. 1905) (seller bound by boundary representation when induced buyer to purchase up to that line)
- Riesland v. Schick et al., 111 Or. 42, 224 P. 827 (Or. 1924) (estoppel where seller misrepresented boundary to induce purchase and buyer relied on it)
- Talbot v. Smith, 56 Or. 117, 107 P. 480 (Or. 1910) (mistake alone cannot always create estoppel; distinguished here)
- Eidman v. Goldsmith, 149 Or. App. 7, 941 P.2d 1045 (Or. App. 1997) (notice-based binding of successors to boundary agreement)
- Webb v. Stewart, 255 Or. 523, 469 P.2d 609 (Or. 1970) (constructive notice to purchaser of claim to property)
- Summers v. Holder, 254 Or. 180, 458 P.2d 429 (Or. 1969) (equitable considerations in boundary disputes)
- Blaisdell v. Nelsen, 66 Or. App. 511, 674 P.2d 1208 (Or. App. 1984) (elements of boundary by agreement)