AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The case concerns a boundary dispute between two sisters over land parcels gifted by their father in 1981. A fence was initially built to demarcate the boundary, but a surveyor's error in 1983 altered the legal descriptions of the parcels. After their father's death in 1988, one sister began constructing a new fence encroaching on the other's land, leading to intermittent disputes over the next decade. The new fence was completed in 1996, and access to the disputed land was blocked (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court, February 2000: The court ordered an independent surveyor to review the property boundaries after hearing testimony. In 2009, the court ruled that the statute of limitations did not bar the complaint and resolved the boundary dispute in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the removal of the fence (paras 4-5).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the four-year "catch-all" statute of limitations, asserting that the cause of action accrued in 1988 when the boundary dispute was first discovered. Contended that the continuing wrong doctrine was inapplicable (paras 6, 16).
• Appellee (Plaintiff): Claimed that the dispute was ongoing and that the ten-year statute of limitations for adverse possession applied. Asserted that the complaint was filed within the permissible time frame (paras 5, 16).

Legal Issues

• Does the four-year "catch-all" statute of limitations apply to boundary disputes, or is the ten-year period for adverse possession applicable?
• Was the plaintiff's complaint time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the ten-year statute of limitations for adverse possession applied and that the plaintiff's complaint was timely filed (paras 17-18).

Reasons

Per Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge (Vigil and Vanzi JJ. concurring):

• The court determined that boundary disputes are governed by the ten-year statute of limitations for adverse possession, not the four-year "catch-all" statute. This aligns with precedent recognizing that equitable claims to property title are not barred by general statutes of limitations but only by the adverse possession statute (paras 10-11).
• The court found that the defendant's sporadic construction of the fence and lack of continuous, exclusive possession of the disputed property precluded the ten-year adverse possession period from running. Thus, the plaintiff's complaint, filed in 1998, was timely (paras 14-15).
• The court rejected the defendant's argument that the continuing wrong doctrine was inapplicable, as the plaintiff's claim was timely under the adverse possession statute. The court also clarified that the doctrine of laches could bar stale claims but was not raised in this case (paras 13, 16).