Bahr v. Imus
Utah Supreme Court
2011 UT 19; 250 P.3d 56
The Utah Supreme Court explained three approaches to settle boundary disputes, Boundary by Acquiescence, Boundary by Agreement, and Boundary by Estoppel.
Boundary by Acquiescence is shown by establishing: (1) Occupation up to a visible line marked by monuments, fences, or buildings; (2) mutual acquiescence in the line as a boundary; (3) for a long period of time (at least 20 years); and (4) by adjoining landowners.
Boundary by Agreement may be established by the following: (1) An agreement between adjoining landowners; (2) settling a disputed boundary line; and (3) a showing that an injury would occur if the agreed-upon boundary were not upheld. The agreement must be clear and explicitly meant to settle a disputed boundary; an agreement may not be implied or inferred. In addition, the settled boundary must be clearly marked, so that successor parties may be put on notice of the boundary’s location.
Boundary by Estoppel recognizes long-standing practice. A boundary may be established by estoppel if: (1) There is an admission, statement, or act by one party that is inconsistent with the boundary location later claimed; (2) The other party relied upon that admission, statement, or act; and (3) An injury would occur to the other party if the first party were allowed to repudiate the earlier admission.