Teton Peaks Inv. Co., LLC v. Ohme

• Decision Date: 16 October 2008
• Docket Number: No. 34642.,34642.
• Citation: 146 Idaho 394,195 P.3d 1207
• Parties: TETON PEAKS INVESTMENT CO., LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E. Frank OHME and Maureen Ohme, husband and wife, Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

195 P.3d 1207

146 Idaho 394

TETON PEAKS INVESTMENT CO., LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E. Frank OHME and Maureen Ohme, husband and wife, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 34642.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Idaho Falls, September 2008 Term.

October 16, 2008.

Thomsen Stephens Law Offices, PLLC, Idaho Falls, for appellant. Curt R. Thomsen argued.

Hopkins, Roden, Crockett, Hansen & Hoopes, Idaho Falls, for respondent. C. Timothy Hopkins argued.

W. JONES, Justice.

This case arises out of a boundary dispute between Teton Peaks Investment Co., LLC (Teton Peaks), and E. Frank Ohme and Maureen Ohme, husband and wife (the Ohmes). Teton Peaks and the Ohmes own adjacent parcels of real property separated by a fence that is not the true boundary line. The fence encroaches on Teton Peaks' property by 0.29 acres. Teton Peaks filed suit against the Ohmes to quiet title to the 0.29 acres of real property, additionally alleging trespass, damages and unjust enrichment. The Ohmes answered with a counterclaim and an affirmative defense alleging boundary by agreement. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Ohmes, finding that the encroaching fence established a boundary by agreement and that no unjust enrichment had occurred. Teton Peaks appeals that decision.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Both parties stipulate that all the facts presented to the district court are all the facts that would be presented if this case were to go to trial. The Ohmes and Teton Peaks own adjacent parcels of property in Idaho Falls. Both properties have been primarily used for agricultural purposes. The Ohmes parcel consists of 80 acres and the chain of title can be traced to 1893 when the parcel exited the public domain. Teton Peaks owns several parcels of land near the Ohmes and one 21.80 acre parcel directly east of the Ohmes property; this is the parcel that contains the encroaching fence.

A fence divides the Ohmes property from Teton Peaks and encroaches on the Teton Peaks parcel by 0.29 acres. The Ohmes provided the district court with evidence that the fence was built sometime prior to 1940 when the property was owned by Raymond Carney and has been in existence ever since. Raymond Carney subsequently sold the property to George Smith in 1973, who believed that the fence was the property line. George and Shirley Smith conveyed the property to Smith Development LLC, and Smith Development LLC conveyed the property to Teton Peaks. There is no evidence in the record as to who built the fence, when the fence was constructed or for what purpose. Each owner from 1940 until 2004¹ treated the fence as the property line. Teton Peaks learned of the encroachment in 2006 when a survey of the property was conducted.

Until 1981, the fence was followed by irrigation ditches on both the east and west sides of the fence lines. In 1981 the irrigation ditch on the Teton Peaks parcel was removed and replaced with a sprinkler system. The irrigation ditch on the Ohmes parcel remains. There is no evidence as to the dates the ditches were constructed or why the locations were chosen.

The following issues are presented to this Court on appeal:

1. Whether the district court erred in finding a boundary by agreement.

2. Whether the district court erred when it denied Teton Peaks' claim for unjust enrichment.

3. Whether the Ohmes are entitled to attorney's fees on appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, this Court employs the same standard as the trial court. Robison v. Bateman-Hall, Inc., 139 Idaho 207, 209, 76 P.3d 951, 953 (2003). Summary judgment is proper when "the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id. (citing I.R.C.P. 56(c)). The facts are construed liberally in favor of the non-moving party. Id.

The district court did not err in finding a boundary by agreement.

Boundary by agreement consists of two elements: (1) an uncertain or disputed boundary, and (2) a subsequent agreement fixing the boundary. Luce v. Marble, 142 Idaho 264, 271, 127 P.3d 167, 174 (2005). The first element may be satisfied by "[i]gnorance of what is later deemed to be the true boundary." Id. The agreement may be either express or implied through the behavior of the parties. Id. "Which party pays property tax on the disputed land is irrelevant to determining a claim based on boundary by agreement." Neider v. Shaw, 138 Idaho 503, 506, 65 P.3d 525, 528 (2003). A boundary which has been fixed through agreement or acquiescence is binding upon successors in interest with notice. Luce, 142 Idaho at 271, 127 P.3d at 174. "One who purchases property is put on notice of title disputes that a reasonable investigation would reveal." Anderson v. Rex Hayes Family Trust, 145 Idaho 741, 743, 185 P.3d 253, 255 (2008). "The conduct of subsequent owners, or their understandings as to the boundary, would not prove or disprove an implied agreement." Downey v. Vavold, 144 Idaho 592, 596, 166 P.3d 382, 386 (2007).

For nearly a century it has been the law of this state that evidence of a long established fence creates two presumptions. First, when a fence line has been erected, and then coterminous landowners have treated that fence line as fixing the boundary between their properties "for such a length of time that neither ought to be allowed to deny the correctness of its location" the law presumes an agreement fixing that fence line as the boundary. . . . Second, coupled with the long existence and recognition of a fence as a boundary, "the want of any evidence as to the manner or circumstances of its original location, the law presumes that it was originally located as a boundary by agreement because of uncertainty or dispute as to the true line."

Luce, 142 Idaho at 271-72, 127 P.3d at 174-75 (internal citations omitted). "The holder of title to property is the presumed legal owner of that property." Anderson, 145 Idaho at 743, 185 P.3d at 255. Another person who claims ownership to that property must establish the claim by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence. Id.

This Court finds no error in the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Ohmes. The evidence clearly proves the fence has existed for more than 60 years and has been treated by coterminous owners as the boundary line for the same period. Each of the parcels' respective irrigation ditches existed immediately adjacent to each side of the fence. This evidence strongly suggests that each parcel owner built an irrigation ditch just within what was the presumed property line and that a fence was erected to separate the parcels. Although Teton Peaks presented evidence that Smith may have been informed of an uncertain boundary in 1996, this fact does not negate the use of the fence and the presumed uncertainty of the boundary line prior to 1996. Downey, 144 Idaho at 596, 166 P.3d at 386 (stating that subsequent conduct of subsequent owners does not prove or disprove an implied agreement between the original parties.) Any boundary by agreement was established long before 1996 and is subsequently binding on Teton Peaks. Viewing the very limited evidence in the light most favorable to Teton Peaks, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Ohmes effectively proved boundary by agreement. The Ohmes presented evidence that the fence had been erected and treated as the boundary line for over 60 years, which gives rise to both presumptions as stated in Luce. See Luce, 142 Idaho at 271-72, 127 P.3d at 174-75. First, that there had originally been an agreement fixing the fence as the boundary line, and second that the boundary line was originally fixed because of an uncertainty or dispute. Teton Peaks offered no evidence that would tend to show otherwise, except for the legal descriptions which show that the fence is not the true property line.² Teton Peaks also stipulated that there would be no further development of the record. This Court affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Ohmes.

Teton Peaks filed a motion to augment the briefs and cites to Anderson v. Rex Hayes Family Trust, 145 Idaho 741, 185 P.3d 253 (2008). Anderson reiterates the proposition that "[t]he `long existence and recognition of a fence as a boundary, in the absence of any evidence as to the manner or circumstances of its original location, strongly suggests that the fence was located as a boundary by agreement.'" Anderson, 145 Idaho at 744, 185 P.3d at 256 (quoting Cox v. Clanton, 137 Idaho 492, 494-95, 50 P.3d 987, 989-90 (2002)). Nevertheless, in Anderson this Court affirmed the district court's holding that the fence did not establish a boundary by agreement. Anderson is distinguishable from this case however, in that in Anderson there was evidence to contradict the presumption of a boundary be agreement created by the existence of a fence. That evidence was that Anderson had signed a written lease agreement of the disputed property in which he recognized title to the disputed property in the Rex Hayes Family Trust. This Court cited to the lease agreement and "considered the effect of Hayes' purported acquiescence with regard to the fence [presumption]" but found that evidence unpersuasive in light of the contrary evidence of the written lease...