Anderson v Fautin

Anderson sought review of the Court of Appeals decision holding boundary by acquiescence can be proved by one landowner occupying the land up to the fence or other visible line and proof that both landowners occupied the land is not required. The Court affirmed. It first noted that early Utah precedent mistakenly failed to separate acquiescence cases from boundary by agreement cases which led the unfortunate consequence of requiring proof of consent to the acquiescent claim which was inappropriate as acquiescence was passive instead of active. However, the Court held that more modern case law properly distinguished between agreement and acquiescence and treats acquiescence as akin to adverse possession and only requiring the claimant to prove occupation up to the line and to also prove the adjoining owner, either through silence or indolence, did not object for the 20 year period. The Court noted that acquiescence doctrine fills in the gap in adverse possession law in that paying taxes is required to adversely possess and landowners are unlikely to get a tax lot description during the period of occupation. Applying here, Fautin occupied the property up to the fence line for over 20 years and Anderson failed to visit his property for 26 years thus failing to object through indolence.