Two Opinions Demonstrate What It Takes to Establish Boundary by Acquiescence

The Iowa appellate courts have decided several boundary dispute cases in recent months. These two cases can be added to the list. In the first case, the trial court determined that the plaintiff had not established a fence as a boundary line by acquiescence. That decision was affirmed on appeal. While a boundary can be established by acquiescence that has gone on for 10 years or more, the party claiming a boundary by acquiescence must prove that each of the adjoining landowners had knowledge of the asserted boundary line and consented to it. Here, the evidence was conflicting as to whether the fence established the boundary, and the court determined that the plaintiffs had failed to present clear and convincing evidence of acquiescence. So, no boundary by acquiescence was established. Hager v. Oak-Mills, L.C., et al., No. 6-956/06-0322, 2007 Iowa App. LEXIS 36 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2007).

In the second case, the parties owned adjoining properties. According to the defendant, a pin and a white line painted vertically above the pin on a building marked the boundary.  The plaintiff disagreed, and filed a quiet title action to settle the matter. The trial court held that the pin and white line marked the boundary and that the parties and their predecessors had acquiesced in the boundary line. On appeal, the trial court’s decision was affirmed. The appellate court determined that the trial court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that the prior owners viewed the white line as the boundary and that the usage of the adjoining tracts was consistent with treating the white line as the boundary. Lucas v. Forrester, No. 6-688/05-1847, 2007 Iowa App. LEXIS 192 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2007).