Cox v. Clanton, No. 27020.

• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: KIDWELL, Justice.
• Citation: 50 P.3d 987,137 Idaho 492
• Parties: Michael G. COX and Jennifer Cox, husband and wife, Terry Maupin and Mindy Maupin, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Counterdefendants-Appellants, v. Peggy CLANTON, Thelma Anderson, and Teresa Krusell, married women dealing with their sole and separate property, Defendants-Counterclaimants-Third Party Complainants-Respondents. v. Deelane Maupin, and Justin Maupin and Jane Doe Maupin, husband and wife, Third Party Defendants-Appellants.
• Docket Number: No. 27020.
• Decision Date: 02 July 2002

50 P.3d 987
137 Idaho 492

Michael G. COX and Jennifer Cox, husband and wife, Terry Maupin and Mindy Maupin, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Counterdefendants-Appellants,
v.
Peggy CLANTON, Thelma Anderson, and Teresa Krusell, married women dealing with their sole and separate property, Defendants-Counterclaimants-Third Party Complainants-Respondents.
v.
Deelane Maupin, and Justin Maupin and Jane Doe Maupin, husband and wife, Third Party Defendants-Appellants

No. 27020.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, May 2002 Term.

July 2, 2002.

50 P.3d 988

Just Law Office, Idaho Falls, for appellants. Charles C. Just argued

Hopkins, Roden, Crockett, Hansen & Hoopes PLLC, Idaho Falls, for respondents. Teresa L. Sturm argued.

KIDWELL, Justice.

The Coxes and the Maupins purchased property and made improvements upon land they believed they owned. A subsequent survey of the property revealed that the appellants did not own the land; the respondents held title to the disputed property. The appellants filed a quiet title action, and the district court quieted title in the respondents. The appellants appeal.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs bought parcels of land in separate purchases from Merlin Sharp (Sharp). Terry and Mindy Maupin purchased land from Sharp in December of 1998; the Coxes' purchase occurred in February of 1999. Sharp had acquired the land from his parents in 1996, and his parents apparently had acquired it from Julius Carsten who owned it for approximately thirteen years. The plaintiffs were given recorded deeds to the property.

The defendants received their property by a recorded deed on May 11, 1999, from their mother, Nina Anderson. Nina and her husband Warren owned the land since 1956, acquiring it from Martin Anderson. In 1967, Warren hastily erected a fence on their property to contain cattle. It is in substantially the same condition as it was then, consisting of evenly-spaced steel fence posts with three or four strands of barbed wire connecting them, and is still used to contain cattle. After observing the property, the district court determined that the land on either side of the fence was "indistinguishable."

The plaintiffs believed that the fence represented the boundary between the properties. Acting under that belief, they graded and graveled a road, bridged a canal, removed trees, and dug a trench in which power and cable lines were placed. These improvements were made in conjunction with the construction of two homes, one for Terry's brother, DeeLane Maupin, and one for DeeLane's son, Justin Maupin. Only after having the land surveyed did the plaintiffs realize that the fence did not represent the boundary line contained in the recorded deeds, and that the improvements had been made on land they did not own.

The plaintiffs notified the defendants of the problem; prior to that, the defendants were unaware of any improvements on the land because they rented the land to ranchers. The parties were unable to reach a compromise on the approximately one-acre strip of land in dispute, and plaintiffs filed an

50 P.3d 989

action to quiet title. The defendants counterclaimed and filed a third party complaint against DeeLane, Justin, and his family for trespass, conversion, and to quiet title. Both sides filed cross motions for summary judgment supported by briefs and affidavits. Plaintiffs argued that the boundary line should be the fence line, based on the theories of boundary by acquiescence, boundary by agreement, adverse possession, or estoppel. Defendants argued that the boundary lines in all of the recorded deeds should stand, and that the elements required for the above-mentioned theories were not established. Nina testified as to the circumstances surrounding the erection of the fence, stating that the fence was put up hastily to contain cattle. She stated that she and her family had used the land outside the fenced land and had not treated it as a boundary to the property. She further stated that there was never an agreement or acquiescence on her part with former neighboring predecessors in interest to change the boundary lines provided in the recorded deeds

On August 8, 2000, the district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court found no evidence in the record of an agreement or acquiescence between the parties or their predecessors in interest to treat the fence as a common boundary. The court found that the plaintiffs had not established the required elements of the theory of boundary by agreement or boundary by acquiescence. Appellants filed this timely appeal on October 20, 2000.

II.

STANDARD OF...