Huskinson v. Nelson

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed a boundary dispute involving a fence separating adjacent parcels and a claim of boundary by agreement. The court held that summary judgment for the record titleholders was improper because the district court failed to consider whether subsequent landowners’ long-term acquiescence and farming practices established an implied boundary agreement. The judgment was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings; costs were awarded to the Nelsons, but no attorney fees.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment for the Huskinsons was improper because the district court failed to consider whether the conduct of the parties and their predecessors after 1947 established a subsequent boundary by agreement.
2. A boundary by agreement is not foreclosed merely because the fence was not initially erected as a boundary; a subsequent agreement may arise from the conduct of later owners and their predecessors.
3. The Huskinsons were not entitled to attorney fees on appeal because they did not prevail.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment against the Nelsons' boundary-by-agreement claim based solely on the inference that the fence was originally erected while the property was under common ownership.
2. Whether post-1947 conduct, including long-term acquiescence, farming up to the fence, and treatment of the fence as a boundary, could support an implied boundary agreement.
3. Whether either party was entitled to attorney fees on appeal.

Disposition

vacated