Quiet title; Acquiescence for the statutory period; Walters v Snyder; Veracity of the witnesses

In this quiet-title action, the court affirmed the trial court’s order granting title of the disputed area to plaintiffs/counter-defendants (the Oeschgers.) Defendants/counter-plaintiffs (the Youngs) argued “the trial court erred in finding the Oeschgers acquired title to the disputed area through acquiescence. Further, even if title by acquiescence was established, the trial court impermissibly applied tacking as a basis for awarding title of the disputed area.” The court held that “the trial court correctly focused its analysis on how the parties’ predecessors in interest treated the disputed property line. There is no error in the trial court’s analysis because its finding that the parties’ predecessors treated the tree line as the property line during the statutory period is supported by the record.” The court noted the Youngs raised “the curious argument that the trial court erred because it failed to factor the adverse possession elements into its analysis.” However, given that “the trial court expressly rejected the Oeschgers’ adverse possession claim[,]” consideration of the elements of adverse possession was irrelevant to the question of title by acquiescence here. The Youngs also appeared to challenge the veracity of the Oeschgers’ witnesses. The court noted that it defers to the fact-finder on issues of witness credibility. Finally, because “the property line was fixed when the Oeschgers acquired title to their property in 2014, the trial court correctly awarded” them the disputed area. Affirmed.