Boundary Not Established by Longstanding Fence

On December 21, 2022, the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of property under the legal theories of boundary by acquiescence or adverse possession. The plaintiffs claimed that a longstanding fence established the property line, but the court found that was insufficient proof that the fence was a known boundary in a definite location. The plaintiffs’ claim of adverse possession failed because their use of the property was not hostile or under a claim of right. The defendants retained title to the disputed property.  

Facts

The disputed boundary is located in wooded land, with the plaintiffs’ property to the north and the defendants’ property to the south. The plaintiffs acquired their land in 2008 and defendants acquired theirs in 2018. Both of the parcels’ predecessors used the land for pasture.

The fence at issue is located within the woods and entirely upon the defendants’ property according to the legal description of their property. The origin of the fence is unknown, but the plaintiffs claimed it had been built more than 50 years ago. It was identified on a recorded plat of survey from 1995. The fence was not well maintained throughout the years and the exact location was unknown at the time of trial.

The lawsuit was filed when the defendants dug up the fencing in 2021 to prepare for building a home. In digging up the fence, the defendants relied upon a survey they commissioned in 2020, showing that the fence was on their property. The plaintiffs filed a quiet title action under two theories – boundary by acquiescence and adverse possession. They claimed the fence was the boundary between the parcels because it was in existence for more than 10 years. They alleged they had used the property to ride ATVs, forage for mushrooms, hike, and pasture cattle.

The district court ruled that plaintiffs did not meet their burden to prove a boundary by acquiescence. The court found that not only was the fence in disrepair, but the fence was a “fence of convenience” built “on the first level ground [the previous owners] could find.” The plaintiffs appealed. The district court also rejected the plaintiffs’ adverse possession claim.

Analysis

On appeal, the Court of Appeals first reviewed the boundary by acquiescence claim. The court explained that the plaintiffs had to prove that the fence was a known boundary in a definite location to win their claim. The court found that the 1995 plat did not have enough information about the fence to show that the location was known. Additionally, the plaintiffs’ parcel’s previous owner testified that he was only vaguely familiar with where the fence was located and had only checked it twice in 30 years. The plaintiffs also did not regularly maintain the fence since they gained possession in 2008.  Finally, the court found that plaintiffs did not provide any clear evidence that the defendants or the previous owners of the defendants’ parcel were aware that the plaintiffs or their predecessor claimed the fence line as the boundary between the properties.

The court then examined the adverse possession claim. To be successful, the court noted that the plaintiffs had to show that their use of the disputed property was hostile to the true owner and under a claim of right. Substantial maintenance and improvement can prove the use was hostile, but “mere use” is insufficient. The court found that no maintenance was done on the fence, and that ATVs could not have accessed a large portion of the disputed area. Any other activities, such as hiking or foraging, were not enough to establish that plaintiffs' use was hostile or under a claim of right. Therefore, their claim of adverse possession failed.