By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//February 3, 2011//
Property
Acquiescence
Where a boundary line cannot be determined from the deeds and original monument or markers, a circuit court should establish the boundary line based on the best evidence available.
“Although the descriptions in the deeds are unambiguous on their face, the real estate described cannot be located on the ground because, as the circuit court explained, ‘the corner of Sections 4,[7] 5, 8, and 9 cannot be located.’ Thus it is not possible using the deed descriptions and nothing more to locate on the ground the southwest one-fourth of the northwest one-fourth of Section 9 and the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 8.”
“The circuit court therefore looked to extrinsic evidence to determine the boundary line and concluded that ‘the best evidence available are the lines of occupation and possession’ and that the landowners and the County have used the center line of Henn Road as the boundary line between the properties at issue for ‘almost all of the twentieth century and up until the year 2005.’ Accordingly, the circuit court concluded that ‘[i]t is the judgment of this court that a longstanding common usage and acquiescence to ownership and possession to real estate has occurred in the area of the Henn Road in Ashland County near the common sections of 4, 5, 8, and 9 [and] [t]he centerline of the existing Henn Road is determined to be the boundary line between the property owners in this case.’ For the reasons set forth, we agree with the circuit court’s determination of the location of the boundary line at issue based on the evidence in this case, not based on the legal doctrine of acquiescence.”
Affirmed.
09AP1559 Northrop v. Opperman
Abrahamson, C.J.
Attorneys: For Appellant: Zick, Vicki, Johnson Creek; For Respondent: Thrasher, Joe, Rice Lake