Boundary line dispute; Quiet title; Acquiescence; Houston v Mint Group, LLC; Sackett v Atyeo

The court held that the trial court properly determined plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their acquiescence claim. Defendants sought to plant a row of arborvitaes along the boundary line between the parties’ respective properties. Defendants’ survey showed several encroachments of the boundary line by plaintiffs, which defendants intended to remove. Plaintiffs sued, arguing that the actual property line was four or five feet over from the legally described property line, that the property line had changed through adverse possession and acquiescence, and that they had acquired a prescriptive easement through their encroachments. The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiffs and entered a final order awarding them title of the disputed area. On appeal, the court rejected defendants’ argument that the trial court erred by finding plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs’ adverse possession and acquiescence claims. “Like the plaintiff in Houston, plaintiffs in this case established that the parties acquiesced to the historic boundary for the 15-year statutory period as a matter of law.” And defendants failed to “put forth any evidentiary issues to contest plaintiffs’ evidence.” Without dispute, plaintiffs showed that they, “defendants, and their predecessors in ownership, treated the historic boundary as the actual property line for the requisite statutory period. Because the historic boundary became the legal property line through acquiescence, plaintiffs gained title to all property on their side of that line.” Affirmed.