Legal Opinion

Hancock v. Nicoley

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided April 13, 2016No. Docket 33,390PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BUSTAMANTE, Judge.

{1} Plaintiff Ila Beth Hancock appeals the district court’s order in which it applied the doctrine of acquiescence to conclude that the boundary between her property and Ray Nicoley’s property was marked by the fence line instead of the surveyed boundary because the parties had long treated the fence line as the boundary. In effect, the district court ordered the transfer of some of Hancock’s property to Nicoley. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

{2} Plaintiff Ila Beth Hancock owned two parcels of land in Quay County. The two parcels lay to the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Gallegos v. Pueblo of TesuqueNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Shaw v. ShawMississippi Supreme Court · 1992
  3. State v. MorrisNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Srader v. VerantNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State Ex Rel. King v. UU Bar Ranch Ltd. PartnershipNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2009

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Kaywal, Inc. v. Avangrid Renewables, Inc.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API