LeeJoice v. Harris

17 Citing cases

  1. Blanchard v. Rasmussen

    No. A05-474 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2005)

    Acquiescence requires actual or implied consent to some action by the disseizor, such as construction of a boundary or other use of the disputed property and acknowledgement of that boundary for an extended period of time. Engquist, 243 Minn. at 507-08, 68 N.W.2d at 417; LeeJoice v. Harris, 404 N.W.2d 4, 7 (Minn.App. 1987); see also Fishman v. Nielsen, 237 Minn. 1, 7-8, 53 N.W.2d 553, 556-57 (1952) (finding practical boundary by acquiescence when two predecessors in title agreed on a line, built a fence on the line, and acquiesced in the line for at least 18 years); In re Zahradka, 472 N.W.2d 153, 156 (Minn.App. 1991) (finding that boundary by practical location by acquiescence when disseizor built parking lot on disseized land and disseized made no claim to ownership of land for more than 15 years), review denied (Minn. Aug. 29, 1991).

  2. Pomphrey V. State ex Rel. St. Louis County

    No. A07-1255 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2008)

    A party claiming ownership of a tract of land by practical location has the burden of proof. LeeJoice v. Harris, 404 N.W.2d 4, 7 (Minn.App. 1987). "Because the effect of a practical location is to divest one party of property that is clearly and concededly his by deed, the evidence establishing the practical location must be clear, positive, and unequivocal."

  3. Pratt Investment Company v. Kennedy

    636 N.W.2d 844 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 22 times
    Declining to consider new argument on appeal as basis for assertion that respondent should have been awarded rule 11 sanctions

    While case law does not say that "possession" is an element of establishing a boundary by practical location, "[a]cquiescence entails affirmative or tacit consent to an action by the alleged disseizor, such as construction of a physical boundary or other use * * * ." LeeJoice v. Harris, 404 N.W.2d 4, 7 (Minn.App. 1987). Implicit in the case law is the notion that the disseizor has claimed, by way of some action, that a boundary has existed for the statutory period, and the disseized has acquiesced to that boundary.

  4. Towley v. Wick

    No. A19-0661 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2019)

    Acquiescence requires "affirmative or tacit consent" to some action by a disseizor, like construction of a physical barrier, and acknowledgement of that barrier by the disseized. LeeJoice v. Harris, 404 N.W.2d 4, 7 (Minn. App. 1987). To demonstrate acquiescence, a boundary line must be "certain, visible, and well-known," and the practical boundary must be "known, definite, certain, and capable of ascertainment."

  5. In re Cummins

    A17-1568 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 7, 2018)

    We have said that "[a]cquiescence entails affirmative or tacit consent to an action by the alleged disseizor, such as construction of a physical boundary or other use, which tends to establish the visual to boundary." LeeJoice v. Harris, 404 N.W.2d 4, 7 (Minn. App. 1987); see also Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Selnes, 223 Minn. 518, 521, 27 N.W.2d 553, 554 (1947) ("The evidence seems quite clear that for a period of more than 30 years defendant and her predecessor acquiesced in the claim of plaintiff and its predecessors to 110 feet frontage on the Fourth avenue side."). Not only does the record show that the Vogts did not erect the fence, it shows that the Vogts never expressly nor implicitly asserted that the fence was the boundary.

  6. In re Cummins

    A14-0737 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    Acquiescence requires actual or implied consent to some action by the disseizor, such as erecting a fence or some other physical boundary, and acknowledgment of that boundary by the disseized. LeeJoice v. Harris, 404 N.W.2d 4, 7 (Minn. App. 1987). The boundary line must be "certain, visible, and well-known" to demonstrate acquiescence in a boundary location.

  7. Soland v. Evert

    No. A11-100 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2011)

    Acquiescence requires actual or implied consent to some action by the disseizor, such as construction of a boundary or other use of the disputed property, and acknowledgement of that boundary by the disseized party for an extended period of time. Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502, 507-08, 68 N.W.2d 412, 417 (1955); LeeJoice v. Harris, 404 N.W.2d 4, 7 (Minn. App. 1987). To demonstrate acquiescence in a boundary location, the line must be "certain, visible, and well-known."

  8. Britney v. Swan Lake

    795 N.W.2d 867 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 6 times

    The acquiescence required is not merely passive consent but conduct from which assent may be reasonably inferred. Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502, 507-08, 68 N.W.2d 412, 417 (1955) (affirming no-practical-location finding absent evidence that disseized or predecessors recognized or treated a fence as a division line, or that disseizor or predecessors used the disputed land); LeeJoice v. Harris, 404 N.W.2d 4, 7 (Minn.App. 1987) (no practical location by acquiescence when disseizor does not use disputed area for statutory period, even though disseized "tacitly consented" to boundary by failing to dispute a sightline). Typically, practical location by acquiescence "occurs when neighbors attempt to establish a fence as close to the actual boundary as possible, or when the disseizor unilaterally marks the boundary, and the disseized neighbor thereafter recognizes that line as the actual boundary."

  9. Andersen v. Crowson

    No. A10-696 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2011)

    Acquiescence requires actual or implied consent to some action by the disseizor, such as construction of a boundary or other use of the disputed property, and acknowledgement of that boundary by the disseized party for an extended period of time. Engquist, 243 Minn. at 507-08, 68 N.W.2d at 417; LeeJoice v. Harris, 404 N.W.2d 4, 7 (Minn. App. 1987). The disseizor must take some action to demarcate an actual boundary by erecting a barrier or making some use of the land; otherwise there is not an identifiable boundary in which the disseized can acquiesce.

  10. GELAO v. COSS

    No. A08-1725 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 1, 2009)

    Coss purchased the land adjacent to the Gelaos' property in June 1993. The Gelaos commenced this action 14 years later on June 2007. See LeeJoice v. Harris, 404 N.W.2d 4, 7 (Minn. App. 1987) (holding that period for acquiescence may run until commencement of action in district court). Thus, the Gelaos' claim for boundary by practical location by acquiescence fails as a matter of law.