William R. Fischer v. James F. Croston, 413 P.3d 731

Adjacent landowners: Fischers (north) and Crostons (south). A post-and-wire fence had divided the properties since at least 1951 and was treated by both as the boundary.
In 2015 the Fischers surveyed the line when replacing the dilapidated fence; the survey showed the old fence lay south of the platted boundary (Tract 1) by ~3–9 feet.
The Fischers notified the Crostons, posted “No Trespassing” signs, and asked them not to build until dispute resolved.
The Crostons (through their daughter/agent) erected a new fence on the survey/platted line despite notice. The Fischers sued to quiet title under the doctrine of boundary by agreement and for trespass; the Crostons countered that a verbal agreement (via the Crostons’ son Jim and Mrs. Fischer) adopted the survey line.
District court granted summary judgment to the Fischers: the long-standing fence constituted an agreed boundary; no enforceable agreement existed to change the boundary; the Crostons trespassed; limited attorney fees awarded to Fischers under I.C. § 6-202.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Fischers)	Defendant's Argument (Crostons)	Held
Whether parties formed a binding agreement to move the boundary to the surveyed/platted line	No agreement existed; old fence was the agreed boundary	Oral statements (Mrs. Fischer to Jim) and subsequent fence construction manifested an agreement to use survey line	No. Oral agreement invalid under statute of frauds; no boundary-by-agreement because true line was not uncertain; no agency or consideration present — summary judgment affirmed
Whether Crostons trespassed by entering Tract 1 and building fence	Crostons entered posted property after notice; construction was willful trespass	Entry was excusable while title remained unresolved; not trespass	Yes. Crostons had notice, ignored signs and requests, acted willfully; trespass established under I.C. § 6-202 — summary judgment affirmed
Attorney fees: entitlement and apportionment	Fischers sought fees under I.C. § 6-202 (trespass) and § 12-121	Crostons opposed fees	District court properly awarded reasonable fees apportioned to the trespass claim under § 6-202; appellate fees under § 6-202 also awarded; § 12-121 denied

Goodman v. Lothrop, 151 P.3d 818 (Idaho 2007) (statute of frauds ordinarily bars oral agreements to convey or change real property interests)
Berg v. Fairman, 690 P.2d 896 (Idaho 1984) (agreed boundary doctrine applies only when true boundary is uncertain or in dispute)
Downing v. Boehringer, 349 P.2d 306 (Idaho 1960) (agreed boundaries rest on mutual belief of boundary uncertainty)
Duff v. Seubert, 719 P.2d 1125 (Idaho 1985) (agreed boundary can control even if it varies from written description)
Weitz v. Green, 230 P.3d 743 (Idaho 2010) (willful entry on posted, disputed land can support treble damages and attorney fees under § 6-202)