OPINION
This case came before the Supreme Court on February 4, 2003, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After hearing the аrguments of counsel and reviewing the memoranda of the parties, we are satisfied that cause has not been shown. Accordingly, we shall decide the appeal at this time.
This case presents a boundary line disputе between the plaintiffs, Frederick R. and Helen C. DeCosta (plaintiffs), and the defendants, Joseph and Mary DeCosta (defendants). The plaintiff, Frederick R. DeCosta, and defendant, Joseph DeCosta, are brothers; the recоrd discloses that each assisted the other in the construction of their respective dwellings. Also, in keeping with the harmony and fellowship *1263 that existed between the families in 1969, defendant planted a hedgerow in the vicinity of the еast-west boundary line, which, according to defendant, was considered the boundary line for the parcels. Initially, the parties jointly maintained both sides of the hedgerow, an arrangement that advanced the amicable affiliation between the families. However, by 1991, their relationship had deteriorated greatly and culminated in this dispute. According to the parties, disagreements about the maintenance of the hedgerow led to the rift bеtween the brothers. The defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff in this action for trespass and ejectment and the denial of his counterclaim for adverse possession.
The evidence disclosеd that in 1992, after removing a portion of the hedgerow, defendants erected a ehainlink fence on plaintiffs’ side of the shrubbery. According to plaintiff, this fence was one foot north of the existing hedgerow and two feet north of the property line and was a further encroachment onto his property. 1 The plaintiff sought to have the fence removed, and retained the services of a certified professional engineer and land surveyor, Joseph G.A. Riccio (Riccio), to determine the actual boundary line. At trial, plaintiffs submitted that the Riccio survey outlined the boundary between the parcels, and urged the trial justice to order defendants to remоve the hedgerow and fence. Riccio, testifying on behalf of plaintiffs, said that the fence and hedge did in fact encroach approximately two feet onto plaintiffs’ property. 2 The defendants counterclaimed and asserted ownership by adverse possession, arguing that the law of adverse possession and the doctrine of acquiescence applied to the facts in this case because plaintiffs’ silenсe for such a long period demonstrated clear acquiescence to the boundary between the parcels.
The trial justice found Riccio’s expert testimony to be persuasive and held that the proper boundary line between the parcels should be drawn according to Riccio’s survey. As a result, the trial justice ordered defendants to remove the shrubbery and fence that encroached upon plaintiffs’ proрerty. In denying defendants’ counterclaim, the trial justice concluded that certain elements of adverse possession were not satisfied, particularly because the installation of the hedgerow was neither exclusive nor hostile. In short, the trial justice held that the brothers jointly planted and maintained the hedgerow by mutual assent, an agreement that led to a symbiotic relationship between the parties. Therefore, the trial justice fоund, defendants failed to establish all of the elements required to prove adverse possession. Although he determined that plaintiffs never objected to the placement or location of the hedgerow or the fence, he concluded that the elements of hostility and exclusivity were not satisfied because both parties maintained the shrubbery. The trial justice also concluded that the fence, although an encroachmеnt and an act that was hostile to plaintiffs as “not innocently undertaken,” was erected in 1992, and fell short of the statutory ten-year period for adverse possession.
Likewise, the trial justice found that the doctrine of acquiescence was unavailable because plaintiffs “simply did not acquiesce to the relocation of the boundary *1264 line.” In fact, the trial justice noted that at the time the fence was constructed, defendant “physically removed one of the stone boundary markers to a location * * * where he wanted the fence constructed.”
On appeal, defendants argue that the trial justice failed to properly apply thе doctrine of acquiescence. The defendants primarily rely on
DelSesto v. Lewis,
To establish a claim for adverse possession, a claimant must demonstrate by strict proof, the elements set forth in G.L.1956 § 34-7-1 that the possession was “ ‘actual, open, notorious, hostile, under claim of right, continuous, and exclusive’ for the statutory period of ten years.”
Carnevale v. Dupee,
The doctrine of acquiescence provides that “owners of adjoining estates are precluded from denying a boundary line recognized by both оwners for a length of time equal to that prescribed by the statute of limitations barring a right of reentry.”
Pucino v. Uttley,
We agree with the trial justice’s conclusion that the construction of the fence was “not innocently undertaken,” and, because the fence was erected approximately one foot bеyond the hedgerow, it was a further encroachment onto plaintiffs’ property, clearly adverse to plaintiffs’ ownership interests and thus, hostile. Nevertheless, the requisite statutory period of ten years has not been sаtisfied. Accordingly, defendants’ claim for adverse possession and acquiescence relative to the chainlink fence fails. However, our analysis does not end here because we are of the opinion that the doctrine of acquiescence is applicable to the hedgerow.
*1265
The record discloses that at a happier time in their lives, defendants, without objection by plaintiffs, located and planted the shrubbery at issue. It is also undisputed that both brothers trimmed the shrubbery and otherwise maintained the hedgerow on both sides of the line. Further, although situated two feet onto plaintiffs’ property, this hedgerow was treated as the boundary for the parcels. In
DelSesto,
In the case at bar, it is clear that the placement of the hedgerow in 1969 served as the line of demarcation between the parcels and that plaintiffs assented to its location. We deem this to be sufficient evidence to trigger the doctrine of acquiescence. Although subsequent squabbles about the aesthetics of the shrubbery may have led to the deterioration of their relationship, culminating in the construction of the fence, we are satisfied that the doctrine of acquiescence operates to vest title to the property on plaintiffs’ side of the hedgerow in defendants, notwithstanding thаt plaintiffs may be the record owner.
In conclusion, the defendants’ appeal is sustained in part and denied in part. We affirm that part of the judgment that declares the fence to be an encroachment ontо the plaintiffs’ property and the judgment directing the defendants to remove the fence. We reverse and vacate that portion of the judgment declaring the boundary line between the two properties as reflected in the Riccio survey. We remand this case to the Superior Court with directions to declare a new boundary line, at the point where the hedgerow originally was located.
Notes
. The record is unclear whether the entire hedgerow was removed at this time or whether part of the shrubbery was left standing. However, the trial justice’s bench decision discloses that defendants constructed the fence "one foot northerly of the hedge.”
. The trial justice noted that two other surveys initiated by defendants corroborated Ric-cio’s land survey.