Does boundary by acquiescence require active use by both adjacent landowners? Anderson v. Fautin Explained

In Anderson v. Fautin, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified a key requirement for establishing boundary by acquiescence—specifically, whether the occupation element requires active use of land by both adjacent property owners or only by the party claiming the boundary.

Background and Facts

Terral Anderson purchased property in Piute County in 1968 but left it vacant for over twenty-six years. Janet Fautin purchased adjacent property to the north in 1987, separated by a fence originally constructed in 1930. Fautin and her predecessors actively farmed and grazed livestock on their property up to the fence line for more than twenty years. When Anderson finally surveyed his property in 2005, he discovered the fence was 123 feet south of his actual boundary line. He filed a quiet title action to establish the surveyed boundary and force Fautin to move the fence.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the occupation element of boundary by acquiescence requires active use of land on both sides of a disputed boundary. Anderson argued that because he was an absentee owner who never used his land, Fautin could not establish boundary by acquiescence. Fautin countered that her active use of the disputed area up to the fence line satisfied the occupation requirement regardless of Anderson’s inactivity.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Fautin. The court analyzed Utah case law and found that in every case where the occupation requirement was at issue, courts focused exclusively on the claiming party’s use of the disputed property. The court distinguished between the occupation element and the mutual acquiescence element, noting that opposing landowner activity is typically analyzed as evidence of mutual acquiescence, not occupation. The court emphasized that requiring active occupation by both owners would undermine the doctrine’s policy goals of promoting stability in land ownership and avoiding litigation over long-established boundaries.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important clarity for practitioners handling boundary disputes. To establish the occupation element, attorneys need only demonstrate their client’s active, continuous use of the disputed property up to a visible boundary for at least twenty years. The opposing party’s inactivity or absence cannot defeat a valid boundary by acquiescence claim. However, practitioners should still carefully analyze all four elements of the doctrine, as the absence of any one element is fatal to the claim.