Patsy C. Albert, in Her Capacity as the Trustee of the Patsy C. Albert Revocable Trust v. Delbert Conger and Ruth Conger
2016 Iowa App. LEXIS 840
| Iowa Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Patsy Albert owns a triangular parcel abutting Delbert and Ruth Conger’s property and a county highway; the disputed strip is included in Albert’s deed.
- Albert purchased in 1972; the Congers bought adjacent property in 1993 and installed a vinyl fence in 1999 that lies inside Albert’s legal boundary.
- The Congers openly used, mowed, and improved the disputed area for about two decades; they believed the land was within their deeded title.
- Albert occasionally told Delbert the fence was on her land but took no legal or physical steps to assert title until she ordered a survey around 2012.
- After the survey showed encroachment, Albert sued to quiet title; the Congers counterclaimed, asserting acquisition by acquiescence (and alternatively adverse possession).
- The district court found for the Congers on acquiescence; the Court of Appeals affirmed, quieting title in the Congers’ favor and assessing appellate costs to Albert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a boundary contrary to the legal description can be established by acquiescence | Albert: her deeded legal description controls; she never intended to convey the strip and disputes the fence placement once surveyed | Conger: long, open, continuous use and maintenance of the strip, with Albert’s silence, establishes acquiescence | Court: Held for Congers; acquiescence established after multi-decade, open use and Albert’s inaction |
| Proper standard of appellate review for acquiescence claims | Albert: (implicitly) errors should be corrected under applicable standard; case tried in equity supports de novo review | Conger: (implicitly) proceed under applicable statutory framework for chapter 650 special actions | Court: Noted statute contemplates review "as in an action by ordinary proceedings" but reviewed de novo because case was tried in equity and outcome same under either standard |
| Whether overt acts or express protest are required to establish acquiescence | Albert: pointed to conversations asserting the fence was on her land; argued that should prevent acquiescence | Conger: no overt legal challenge occurred; silence and continued use suffice when circumstances should have put owner on notice | Court: Held that overt acts are not required; silence and failure to contest visible use for required period supports acquiescence |
| Whether the Congers acted in bad faith or arrogantly to claim land | Albert: suggested Congers knowingly encroached | Conger: sincerely believed the land was theirs and acted in good faith improvements and maintenance | Court: Credibility found for Congers; their good-faith, continuous use supports acquiescence |
Key Cases Cited
- Sille v. Shaffer, 297 N.W.2d 379 (Iowa 1980) (acquiescence and adverse possession principles; open and notorious possession suffices)
- Ollinger v. Bennett, 562 N.W.2d 167 (Iowa 1997) (explains acquiescence doctrine and that chapter 650 proceedings are "special actions")
- Egli v. Troy, 602 N.W.2d 329 (Iowa 1999) (party seeking a boundary different from a survey must prove it by clear evidence; acquiescence can be inferred from inaction)
- Tewes v. Pine Lane Farms, Inc., 522 N.W.2d 801 (Iowa 1994) (owner’s mere denial of knowledge won’t defeat acquiescence if circumstances should impose notice)