Parsons v. Anderson

690 P.2d 535, 1984 Utah LEXIS 911
CourtUtah Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 31, 1984
Docket17827
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 690 P.2d 535 (Parsons v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Parsons v. Anderson, 690 P.2d 535, 1984 Utah LEXIS 911 (Utah 1984).

Opinions

HALL, Chief Justice:

Plaintiffs appeal a judgment of the district court that quieted title to a disputed strip of land in defendant on the basis of boundary by acquiescence and awarded damages to defendant for trespass on that strip by plaintiffs. Defendant cross-appeals the conclusion of the district court that defendant did not carry his burden to establish title to the disputed strip by adverse possession. We reverse the judgment of the district court and quiet title in plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs and defendant own adjoining residential properties with plaintiffs’ property situated on the east. The land in dispute is a strip approximately 5.05 feet wide and 340 feet in length that lies between the respective parcels and along the boundary between them.1 In 1939, title to this strip as well as the adjoining property to the east now owned by plaintiffs was quieted in plaintiffs’ immediate predecessors in interest, Lee Neff Taylor and June Bitner Taylor. In 1972, following Mr. Taylor’s death, Mrs. Taylor sold this property to the plaintiffs conveying by two separate deeds, a warranty deed and a quitclain deed. Plaintiffs’ property not in dispute was conveyed by warranty deed; the disputed strip was conveyed by quitclaim deed. The description in the quitclaim deed was later found not to close and another quitclaim deed correcting the error in describing the strip in dispute was issued to the plaintiffs in 1979.

Defendant acquired his property in 1972 by warranty deed. His claim to title of the disputed strip arises from a quitclaim deed dated 1957 from Maude 0. Airis to some of defendant’s predecessors in interest that included the disputed strip. There was no evidence in the chain of title that indicated that Airis had the right to convey any of the disputed strip.

[537]*537

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bahr v. Imus
2011 UT 19 (Utah Supreme Court, 2011)
Ault v. Holden
2002 UT 33 (Utah Supreme Court, 2002)
Jacobs v. Hafen
875 P.2d 559 (Court of Appeals of Utah, 1994)
Gillmor v. Cummings
806 P.2d 1205 (Court of Appeals of Utah, 1991)
Clair W. & Gladys Judd Family Ltd. Partnership v. Hutchings
797 P.2d 1088 (Utah Supreme Court, 1990)
Hancock v. Planned Development Corp.
791 P.2d 183 (Utah Supreme Court, 1990)
Staker v. Ainsworth
785 P.2d 417 (Utah Supreme Court, 1990)
Parsons v. Anderson
690 P.2d 535 (Utah Supreme Court, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
690 P.2d 535, 1984 Utah LEXIS 911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parsons-v-anderson-utah-1984.