Linbaugh v. Gibson, 2020 UT App 108 (July 16, 2020)

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision dismissing a boundary by acquiescence action.  The district court found that because the fence at issue was created to contain animals, the parties’ “predecessors could not have acquiesced in the fence serving as the boundary line between the parties.”  Finding error, the Court of Appeals explained that “boundary by acquiescence ‘is determined by the parties’ objective actions in relation to the boundary and not their mental state.’”  While possibly relevant, the initial purpose of the fence “is not dispositive.”