Real estate disputes can be complex. Understanding your legal rights and responsibilities and the applicable law is key to a positive outcome in your real estate case. Fortunately, you can rely on a top real estate lawyer from Provident Law® to guide you throughout the dispute.
One common type of real estate dispute is a boundary dispute between landowners. In Beck v. Neville, 256 Ariz. 361, 540 P.3d 906 (2024), the Arizona Supreme Court recently recognized a claim for boundary by acquiescence. This claim is a new cause of action concerning boundary disputes.
The Becks and Nevilles owned neighboring properties. In 2004, the Becks installed a line of concrete paver bricks along the edge of their property but not on the true property line. The Becks’ actions in establishing this boundary created the appearance that 135 square feet of their property belonged to the Nevilles. However, the neighbors had no dispute over the boundary line then.
In 2019, the Becks sued the Nevilles to quiet title and establish their ownership of the disputed area. The Nevilles filed a counterclaim against the Becks, also seeking to quiet title to the disputed area based on adverse possession and boundary by acquiescence.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Becks, but the appeals court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court based on disputed questions of fact. The Arizona Supreme Court granted review based on the importance of determining under what circumstances a property owner may quiet title to a portion of another property owner’s land.
In its decision, the Court recognized boundary by acquiescence as a valid legal claim and set forth the elements of proof for the claim. The Court ruled that to maintain a successful boundary by acquiescence claim, a property owner must prove the following elements by clear and convincing evidence:
- Occupation or possession of property up to a clearly defined line;
- Mutual acquiescence by the adjoining landowners in that line as the dividing line between their properties;
- Continued acquiescence for ten years; and,
- Uncertainty or dispute as to the true boundary.
Ultimately, the Arizona Supreme Court determined that the Nevilles’ boundary by acquiescence claim failed. The Court found that the parties never disputed the true boundary line between the two properties. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Nevilles’ limited use of the disputed area was insufficient to notify the Becks that they were claiming ownership of the property. Finally, the Court found no evidence regarding Becks’ acquiescence of the pavers as the new boundary line between the properties.
Likewise, the Court ruled against the Nevilles on their adverse possession claim, finding that the only evidence of Nevilles’ usage of the disputed area was the occasional parking of their vehicle partially in that area. Therefore, the Court found that the Nevilles’ claim of ownership was neither hostile nor exclusive. As the Nevilles could not sustain either their claim of adverse possession or boundary by acquiescence, the Court vacated the appellate Court’s decision and affirmed the trial court’s original grant of summary judgment.
A boundary by acquiescence claim could be useful for property owners in future property boundary disputes under some circumstances. According to the Arizona Supreme Court, if both neighbors agree that the boundary line is uncertain and that an existing physical boundary, such as a fence, is sufficient for at least ten years, neither party can return later and claim that the boundary line lies elsewhere.
Call Us Today with Your Arizona Real Estate Questions and Concerns
We aim to help you through your Arizona real estate disputes to reach the best possible outcome. We will advocate on your behalf throughout your real estate dispute and work to protect your real estate interests. Contact the offices of Provident Law® today at (480) 388-3343 or online and schedule an appointment to speak with a real estate lawyer in Arizona about your legal matter.