Legal Opinion

Anderson v. Fautin

Utah Supreme Court

Decided May 31, 2016No. Case No. 20140664PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice Durrant,

opinion of the Court:

Introduction

{ 1 This case raises a single legal question: does the occupation element in our boundary by acquiescence doctrine require a claimant to prove that both owners of adjoining land cecupied their respective parcels up to a visible line? Terral E. Anderson, the petitioner, owns a vacant parcel adjoining respondent Janet Fautin's parcel, Mr. Anderson failed to visit or inspect his property for a twenty-six year period. During that time, Ms. Fautin occupied her parcel up to a fence dividing the properties. A subsequent survey showed that the…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Orvis v. JohnsonUtah Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Cal Wadsworth Construction v. City of St. GeorgeUtah Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Bahr v. ImusUtah Supreme Court · 2011
  4. Orton v. CarterUtah Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Staker v. AinsworthUtah Supreme Court · 1990

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Linebaugh v. GibsonCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2020
  2. Pioneer Home v. TaxHawkCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2019
  3. Hansen v. Kurry Jensen PropertiesCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2021
  4. Magleby v. SchnibbeUtah Supreme Court · 2024
  5. B.G.T.S. v. Balls Brothers FarmCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2024

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API