Two common methods of establishing a boundary line other than by formal conveyance involve adverse possession and acquiescence. Hausner v. Melia, 212 Neb. 764, 325 N.W.2d 31 (1982).

A sidewalk was constructed some 5 to 6 inches from the true lot line dividing two residences. At a later time the sidewalk was widened to abut on the line. The adjoining lot owner claimed that the original sidewalk placement evidenced an acquiescence in his ownership of the 5 to 6 inches. The court held that the placement of the sidewalk was of no importance and that persons claiming lands of another by adverse possession must establish title by their own actions under a claim of ownership. The only evidence of the claimant neighbor’s use of the 5- to 6-inch strip was that occasionally a wheel of a vehicle entering the claimant’s driveway crossed onto the disputed land. The court held such incidental use was not enough to establish adverse possession; the owner was not required to extend the sidewalk to the property line the first time he constructed it. Elsasser v. Szymanski, 163 Neb. 65, 77 N.W.2d 815 (1956).

A farmer placed a fence line some 27 feet inside his northern section line in anticipation of a section road which was never built. His neighbor to the north brought suit to quiet title to the lands lying south of his section line up to the fence. No use of the land by the claimant could be shown other than as a turnaround area for farm machinery. The court reaffirmed the Elsasser rule and found that the placement of a fence by a landowner inside his boundary does not lead to a relinquishment of ownership of lands outside his fence without an additional showing that the claimant of those lands used them under a claim of ownership. Linch v. Nichelson, 178 Neb. 679, 134 N.W.2d 796 (1965).

An ancient fence had been removed, leaving only a few posts on the west bank of the creek. There was a partial ridge on the old fence line resulting from leveling that was essentially undisputed as the old boundary for the length of its distance. The survey was received into evidence, and its correctness was uncontradicted. The claim of title by adverse possession was denied because the claimant’s evidence, first of all failed to establish where the specific boundary line was, and secondly, failed to describe the land so as to enable the court to enter a verdict upon the description. Layher v. Dove, 207 Neb. 736, 301 N.W.2d 90 (1981).

The claimants by adverse possession were unable to prove the exact location of the original fence. For that reason, and others, their claim was denied. Petsch v. Widger, 214 Neb. 390, 397, 335 N.W.2d 254, 259 (1983).

The clearest of the descriptions presented was an admitted estimation, with no factual basis expressed in the record. An exact metes and bounds description was impossible to ascertain from the record, and the appellants’ failure to adequately describe their proposed boundary was fatal to their claim of adverse possession. Matzke v. Hackbart, 224 Neb. 535, 399 N.W.2d 786 (1987). See also Steinfeldt v. Klusmire, 218 Neb. 736, 359 N.W.2d 81 (1984).

The claimant used the disputed land for grazing livestock, posted it, closed it to dumping, and maintained the perimeter fence over the requisite 10 years. The court held: “Where a fence is constructed as the boundary line, although it is not the actual boundary line, and the parties claim ownership of land up to the fence for the uninterrupted statutory period, the parties gain title to such land by adverse possession.” Wiedeman v. James E. Simon Co., Inc., 209 Neb. 189, 307 N.W.2d 105 (1981). See also Petsch v. Widger, 214 Neb. 390, 335 N.W.2d 254 (1983).

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: