Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Property – boundaries — acquiescence

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 10, 2012//

Property – boundaries — acquiescence

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 10, 2012//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Property – boundaries — acquiescence

Robert and Kathryn Berken appeal a summary judgment in favor of the Village of Little Chute and Adam and Dana Kilgas. The Berkens, the Village, and the Kilgases all own property in a part of the Village known as the Fairview Heights subdivision. The Village and the Kilgases argue that the southern boundary of the subdivision is concurrent with the northern boundary line of government land located to the subdivision’s south. The Berkens contend, however, that the subdivision’s southern boundary lies about fifty feet north of the government lot line, leaving an approximately fifty-foot-wide strip of unplatted “no man’s land” between the subdivision and the government land. Based on the undisputed facts, we agree with the circuit court that the land company that owned, subdivided, and sold the subdivision land between 1915 and 1932 intended the lots along the subdivision’s southern edge to extend all the way south to the government lot line and did not intend to retain ownership of a narrow strip of land between the subdivision and the government property. We therefore affirm. This opinion will not be published.

2010AP3030 Berken v. Little Chute Land Co., et al.

Dist III, Outagamie County, McGinnis, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys: For Appellant: Chudacoff, Bruce M., Appleton; Samson, Harvey G., Appleton; For Respondent: Christensen, Kristy A., Appleton; Koehler, Charles D., Appleton

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests