Can mutual mistaken assumptions support boundary by agreement? Freestone v. Walton Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed an important distinction in property boundary disputes in Freestone v. Walton, clarifying when landowners can establish property lines through boundary by agreement versus boundary by acquiescence.

Background and Facts

The Freestones and Waltons were neighbors whose properties shared a backyard boundary. When the previous owners of the Walton property installed sprinklers and landscaping, they relied on a contractor’s spray-painted markings to identify the property line without obtaining a survey. The Freestones later built a fence along this landscaping line, assuming it represented the true boundary. Years later, the Freestones discovered the fence was actually located on the Walton property, creating a wedge-shaped disputed strip over thirty feet wide at its southern end.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the Freestones could establish ownership of the disputed strip through boundary by agreement. This doctrine requires four elements: (1) an agreement between adjoining landowners, (2) that settles a boundary that is uncertain or in dispute, (3) that injury would occur if the boundary were not upheld, and (4) adequate demarcation providing notice to successors.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the Waltons, focusing on the first two elements. While there may have been some express agreement about fence placement, the court found no evidence that this agreement resolved any dispute or uncertainty about the boundary’s location. Both families mistakenly believed the fence line was the true boundary—there was no actual dispute to resolve. The court emphasized that boundary by agreement requires an actual disagreement or uncertainty, while boundary by acquiescence can be based on mere acts or omissions but requires twenty years of recognition.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces the importance of distinguishing between these two boundary doctrines. Practitioners must prove that parties had genuine uncertainty or dispute about the boundary’s true location when they entered their agreement. Mutual mistaken assumptions about a boundary’s location, without actual dispute, cannot support boundary by agreement. The court’s analysis also demonstrates how the uncertainty requirement provides the necessary consideration for the boundary agreement under contract principles.