What evidence proves mutual acquiescence in Utah boundary disputes? B.G.T.S. v. Balls Brothers Farm Explained

In B.G.T.S. v. Balls Brothers Farm, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified the evidence required to establish mutual acquiescence in boundary by acquiescence claims while reinforcing the requirement that claimants prove actual conveyance of disputed property.

Background and Facts

BGTS and Balls Brothers owned neighboring properties in Cache County. Since at least 1963, BGTS’s predecessors occupied a strip of land between their northern record boundary and a fence line located within Balls Brothers’s record property. When BGTS sued to quiet title to the disputed parcel based on boundary by acquiescence, the district court granted summary judgment for Balls Brothers, finding insufficient evidence of mutual acquiescence.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two critical issues: (1) what evidence satisfies the mutual acquiescence element of boundary by acquiescence, and (2) whether a claimant must prove actual conveyance of disputed property from their predecessor who obtained title through boundary by acquiescence.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s mutual acquiescence ruling, explaining that Anderson v. Fautin clarified that mutual acquiescence “merely requires silence or indolence by a nonclaimant” rather than affirmative consent. The court found the evidence sufficient: BGTS’s predecessors occupied the disputed parcel for twenty years, and Balls Brothers’s predecessors never objected during that period.

However, the court affirmed on alternative grounds. Even assuming BGTS’s predecessor acquired title through boundary by acquiescence, BGTS failed to prove it received that title from its predecessor. The subdivision plat and warranty deed descriptions excluded the disputed parcel, and BGTS produced no evidence of separate conveyance.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for Utah practitioners handling boundary disputes. For mutual acquiescence, silence during the statutory period suffices—practitioners need not prove the non-claimant’s express consent. However, when property is subdivided after boundary by acquiescence may have occurred, practitioners must carefully examine whether disputed strips were properly conveyed through separate instruments or included in lot descriptions.