Utah Court of Appeals
Can a fence built for animal containment establish boundary by acquiescence? Linebaugh v. Gibson Explained
Summary
Neighbors disputed property boundaries after defendants removed a fence that had existed for nearly sixty-four years and built a new wall two feet farther north. The trial court ruled against plaintiff on boundary by acquiescence and trespass claims but granted summary judgment on intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a fence originally built for animal containment could establish a boundary by acquiescence in Linebaugh v. Gibson, 2020 UT App 108. This case clarifies an important principle: courts focus on parties’ objective actions over time, not their original subjective intent when placing boundary markers.
Background and Facts
In 1951, the Gibson property owner erected a v-mesh fence to confine animals, positioned approximately two feet short of their deeded boundary line. For decades, the Gibsons and their predecessors never used the property north of the fence, while Linebaugh and her predecessors used the entire area between their home and the fence as their backyard. When the Gibsons removed the old fence and built a cement retaining wall two feet farther north in 2015, Linebaugh sued claiming boundary by acquiescence.
Key Legal Issues
The trial court rejected Linebaugh’s boundary by acquiescence claim on two grounds: (1) the fence was built for animal containment rather than as a boundary marker, preventing mutual acquiescence; and (2) when the Gibsons repaired the fence in 1996, they broke the required twenty-year period. The court also found only a de minimis trespass.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed, emphasizing that boundary by acquiescence “is determined by the parties’ objective actions in relation to the boundary and not their mental state.” The court noted that the Gibsons never used property north of the fence, never discussed boundaries with neighbors, and took no actions to suggest the fence was not the boundary. The 1996 fence repair did not restart the twenty-year period because it occurred in “approximately” the same location and was not obvious to neighbors.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that Utah’s boundary by acquiescence doctrine focuses on conduct, not intent. Practitioners should examine how parties actually treated a boundary line over time, regardless of why it was originally placed. The court also clarified that routine fence maintenance doesn’t necessarily restart the twenty-year period if the fence remains in substantially the same location.
Case Details
Case Name
Linebaugh v. Gibson
Citation
2020 UT App 108
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20180237-CA
Date Decided
July 16, 2020
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
A fence built initially for animal containment can still serve as a boundary by acquiescence if the parties’ objective actions demonstrate mutual acquiescence over the required twenty-year period.
Standard of Review
Boundary by acquiescence conclusions of law reviewed for correctness; findings of fact clearly erroneous standard. Trespass legal issues reviewed for correctness. Summary judgment reviewed for correctness with no deference. Attorney fees determination without merit reviewed for correctness; good faith determination reviewed for clear error.
Practice Tip
When establishing boundary by acquiescence, focus on the parties’ objective conduct over time rather than their original subjective intent in placing boundary markers like fences.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.