In this case, the Iowa Court of Appeals found that an adjacent landowner successfully established acquiescence over a 1.3 acre triangular piece of farmland. Here, the small triangular piece of land was separated from the rest of the field by a county road. The plaintiffs purchased the entire 365 acre tract of land in 2001. Upon purchase, the legal description was somewhat vague and the plaintiffs assumed that the road was the boundary. Also in 2001, the defendant purchased the land surrounding the triangular tract in 2001. From that time, the defendant farmed the triangular parcel. Eventually, the plaintiffs sued alleging trespass and nuisance and claiming to be the record title holders of the disputed tract. The defendant countersued, admitting that the plaintiffs were the record title holders but that the plaintiffs, for ten consecutive years, had acquiesced to his farming of the triangular parcel.
Several individuals testified at trial that the triangular strip had traditionally been farmed by the adjacent landowners, before the defendant’s purchase of the land across the road. A prior owner testified that he and the adjacent owner had “swapped” slivers of ground on either side of the road for convenience purposes. This was never set out in writing - it was merely an agreement between adjacent landowners. The plaintiffs testified that the triangular parcel was never farmed, but that it was “idle and overgrown with weeds.” The defendant testified that he had leased the property for several years before he purchased it and made several “improvements” to the triangular parcel in dispute. He cleared brush, leveled off some dirt, took out the driveway, and removed the fence. The prior owner stated that there was a “line fence” but that it was not treated as the boundary. Thus, the defendant argued that prior to his ownership, he was farming the disputed parcel and everyone was aware of the arrangement. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit and quieted title in favor of the defendant. The plaintiffs filed an appeal, alleging that the defendant had not owned the parcel for the requisite 10 year time period to satisfy the acquiescence doctrine.
On appeal, the court affirmed. The prior owners of the adjacent parcels had recognized the road as the boundary for several years. The owners had knowledge that this was a change to surveyed property line, but they assented to the road boundary for convenience purposes. According to the court, “acquiescence need not be specifically proven; it may be inferred by the silence or inaction of one party who knows of the boundary line claimed by the other and fails to take steps to dispute it for a ten-year period. However, the party seeking to establish a boundary line other than the boundary line in accordance with a survey must prove acquiescence by clear evidence.”
The defendant was able to assert clear evidence that he and prior owners claimed the triangular parcel for the allotted 10-year period. Thus, the court found acquiescence and did not need to consider adverse possession. Watters v. Medinger, No. 0-638/10-0090, 2010 Iowa App. LEXIS 1422 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2010).