When there is a boundary line dispute between neighboring properties, many people learn first of the doctrine of “adverse possession" - a legal principle derived from the common law under which ownership of a parcel of property (or a portion thereof) can change without payment and against the will of the owner. However, it is not always necessary to resolve a boundary dispute through a claim of adverse possession, and its requirement of a "hostile" taking. Alternative relief may be available under the doctrine of acquiescence. The law of “boundary by acquiescence” is concerned with adjoining property owners, both of whom are mistaken about the location of the actual property boundary. If it turns out that the boundary line that has been used by the parties (for at least 10 years in Iowa) is not the actual recorded property line, one property owner may have actually been possessing what really is the other property owner's land. Regardless of the innocent nature of this mistake, the property owner whose land is being possessed by another would ordinarily have a cause of action against the other property owner to recover possession of the land. But, if the doctrine of “boundary by acquiescence” applies, the property owner of record is no longer able to enforce his title, and the other property owner will gain title.
Here, the parties’ boundary dispute involved a pine tree. When the plaintiff wanted to build a fence dividing the parties’ property, he had the property surveyed to determine the location of the property line. The survey established that the property line was located several feet south of a pine tree located between the properties. The plaintiff didn’t like that result, but a second survey by a different company showed the same thing. Several months later, the plaintiff sued his neighbor for trespass and nuisance. The next day, the defendant filed a counter-suit, seeking to quiet title to the disputed parcel. The plaintiff asserted that the pine tree was the true boundary marker and that the defendant had acquiesced to this boundary in the past. However, the trial court determined that the plaintiff failed to offer proof of a “definite line” and granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
On appeal, the court affirmed that the plaintiff failed to establish acquiescence, as there was no visibly clear line or markings, no fence and nothing other than an imagined line running east and west through the pine tree. In addition, both parties mowed their lawns up to various points around the pine tree at different times. As such, the pine tree alone, the court determined, was insufficient evidence of a boundary. Even if the defendant did not know exactly where the property line was, the plaintiff did not present clear enough evidence of the parties’ agreement on the location. So, the surveys established the boundary. Post v. Barnette, No. 7-506/07-0097, 2007 Iowa App. LEXIS 1219 (Iowa. Ct. App., Nov. 15, 2007)