Another Fenceline Boundary Dispute

Under Iowa law, if a partition fence is not located on the true boundary line and remains there for at least 10 years, it can become the boundary by default.  Iowa Code §650.14 specifies that, “If it is found that the boundaries and corners alleged to have been recognized and acquiesced in for ten years have been so recognized and acquiesced in, such recognized boundaries and corners shall be permanently established.” This concept is commonly known as “boundary by acquiescence” or the “doctrine of practical location.” 

In this case, defendants purchased farmland in 2000 and the plaintiffs purchased an adjoining parcel in 2004.  No surveys were undertaken until 2007, when the defendants surveyed the boundary line between the adjoining parcels and discovered the fence line was not the true boundary (in fact, it was fifty feet off). Upon discovering the erroneous boundary, the defendants placed wooden fence posts in concrete at the corners of their land to mark the boundary indicated by the survey. The feud between the parties began when the plaintiffs removed the posts and filed a petition with the trial court to establish the fence as the true boundary and quiet title to the parcels in question. The defendants filed a countersuit against the previous owners in their chain of title, seeking damages for breach of warranty of title. 

The trial court found for the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit against the previous owners of the defendant’s parcel. The defendants appealed to the Iowa Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in establishing the boundary by acquiescence and by dismissing their claims against the prior owners.  But, the appellate court noted that both parties and their predecessors knew of the actual boundary and treated the fenceline as the boundary for the required period.  So, the trial court’s judgment was affirmed on that issue.

The appellate court also disagreed with the defendants on the damages for breach of title warranty issue. The deed conveyed to the defendants by their predecessors was a general warranty deed, the highest level of protection against claims that a landowner can convey. The terms of the deed offered protection to the defendants in the event that a lawful claim was made adverse to their title.  But, the court noted, “a mere discrepancy in the amount of land conveyed by deed is not, in itself, sufficient to constitute a breach of warranty of title.”  However, since the fence was openly placed, obvious to all parties involved, and the buyers and sellers both accepted that the fence line was the boundary (and set the purchase price accordingly), there was no breach of title and there could not be any recovery for alleged loss of land.  But, the appellate court ordered the prior owners to pay the defendants’ attorney’s fees and expenses “in defending this action” because fees are a lawful element of damages to be recovered in a breach of warranty case.  Lynch v. Lennon, No. 9-739/08-1788, 2009 Iowa App. LEXIS 1428 (Iowa Ct. App., Nov. 12, 2009).