Can property owners establish boundaries through mutual acquiescence despite deeded property lines? Hansen v. Kurry Jensen Properties Explained

In Hansen v. Kurry Jensen Properties, 2021 UT App 54, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether property owners could establish a boundary through acquiescence that differed from their deeded property lines. The case arose when Jensen removed existing fences and attempted to relocate the boundary to match the surveyed deeded line, prompting the Hansens to file suit claiming the lawful boundary had been established through decades of mutual acquiescence.

Background and Facts

Jensen purchased property in 2015 that had been owned by Flora and Richard Motte. The adjacent Hansen property shared a 450-foot boundary line. For decades, various structures and markers existed approximately ten feet west of the deeded boundary line, including a carport built in 1977, a chain link fence erected in 1983, a garage, shed, and rodeo arena. In 2018, Jensen unilaterally removed the fences and began building new fencing along the deeded boundary line, approximately ten feet to the east.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three main issues: (1) whether the district court properly denied Jensen’s summary judgment motions, (2) whether the court erred in denying Jensen’s motion to exclude witnesses for Rule 26 discovery violations, and (3) whether the Hansens proved their boundary by acquiescence claim by clear and convincing evidence.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed on all issues. Regarding the boundary by acquiescence claim, the court applied the four-element test: (1) a visible line marked by monuments, fences, buildings, or natural features, (2) occupation up to that line, (3) mutual acquiescence by adjoining landowners, and (4) for at least 20 years. The court found clear and convincing evidence of visible markers including the carport, chain link fence, garage, shed, and remnants of removed fences, plus a noticeable elevation difference consistent with a long-standing fence line. Crucially, the court found that despite Flora Motte’s testimony denying acquiescence, the objective evidence showed the previous owners’ actions were consistent with recognizing the claimed boundary line.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that mutual acquiescence is determined objectively based on parties’ actions rather than their subjective intent or testimony. Property practitioners should note that even when a party denies acquiescing to a boundary, objective evidence of their conduct may establish acquiescence. The case also demonstrates the importance of addressing trial courts’ specific findings regarding Rule 26 violations, as appellate courts apply substantial deference to harmlessness determinations in discovery matters.