Leon v. Dansie, 17402
| Decision Date | 31 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 17402,17402 |
| Citation | 639 P.2d 730 |
| Parties | Carl LEON and Katherine C. Leon, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Jessie DANSIE and Rodney Dansie, Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
John P. Ashton, Salt Lake City, for Leon.
Thomas A. Duffin, Salt Lake City, for Dansie.
The plaintiffs were awarded a quiet title judgment on a small tract of land in a hilly area at Herriman, Utah. Defendants appeal, urging title by boundary acquiescence, or by virtue of a profit a prendre.
The testimony of one of the defendants, among other evidence introduced, indicated that defendants did not use the disputed area continuously to establish a prescriptive right. Based upon such evidence, the trial court found that an interest by way of profit a prendre never was perfected.
The clear weight of the evidence also showed that although there was a fence in place far in excess of the prescriptive or adverse possession periods necessary to acquire enforceable new title, the almost complete concurrence of all the witnesses on both sides, was to the effect that the fence was used primarily to contain livestock from the field below. The record title clearly was shown to be in the plaintiffs at the outset and thereafter, which was confirmed many years later by an official survey.
The defendants have set forth in their brief, only isolated parts of testimony favoring their contentions, emphasizing existence of a fence for a long time. There was no showing of the important continuity of use factor, and no proof positive of any mutual acquiescence that the fence was or was intended to be a boundary. The trial court reasonably could have recognized and apparently did recognize such insufficiency in the evidence. The quality and quantum of evidence did not measure up to the standard that defendants claim Fuoco v. Williams, 18 Utah 2d 282, 421 P.2d 944 (1966) enunciates.
With little or no contradiction but with considerable concurrence by the defendants themselves, a number of witnesses on both sides conceded that there had been no dispute as to record title at any time over the years. Practically everyone testified as to the purpose of the fence's first and continuous existence-that of keeping livestock away from the fields below. Such purpose eliminates any question of boundary by acquiescence, since the primary purpose thereof is to lock title about which there may be some kind of disagreement into a fixed asset. It would appear that Ringwood v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Halladay v. Cluff
...in the application of the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence. Madsen v. Clegg, Utah, 639 P.2d 726, 728-29 (1981); Leon v. Dansie, Utah, 639 P.2d 730, 731 (1981); Wright v. Clissold, Utah, 521 P.2d 1224, 1226 (1974); Universal Investment Corp. v. Kingsbury, 26 Utah 2d 35, 37-38, 484 P.2d 1......
-
Staker v. Ainsworth
...intermittently began to refer to a showing of uncertainty or dispute in a boundary by acquiescence context. See, e.g., Leon v. Dansie, 639 P.2d 730, 731 (Utah 1981); Glenn v. Whitney, 116 Utah 267, 272-73, 209 P.2d 257, 260 (1949); Peterson v. Johnson, 84 Utah 89, 93, 34 P.2d 697, 698-99 (1......
-
Stone v. Turner
...prevent the conclusion of acquiescence. Accord Anderson v. Osguthorpe, 29 Utah 2d 32, 504 P.2d 1000 (1972). Similarly, in Leon v. Dansie, 639 P.2d 730 (Utah 1981), the reviewing court held that a fence did not constitute a boundary by acquiescence where the purpose of the fence was to keep ......
-
CHAPTER 6 TITLE TO OTHER COMMONLY ENCOUNTERED LANDS
...Weer, 615 P2d 922 (Mont. 1980); Christie v. Papke, 657 P2d 88 (Mont. 1982); Pilgrim v. Kuipens, 679 P2d 787 (Mont 1984); Leon v. Dansie, 639 P2d 730 (Utah 1981) [104] Bate, supra note 1 at 19-12, 19-27, 19-30 [105] Bate, supra note 1 at 19-19 [106] Sky Harbor v. R.S. Jenna, 164 Colo 470, 43......