Bindinglaw

UT · jury_instructions

MUJI 2d CV901

Boundary by Acquiescence

activein force · 2026-08-21 – presentas-observed

[Name of plaintiff] and [name of defendant] are adjoining landowners. There is a dispute over where the legal property line is between the adjoining pieces of property. [Name of plaintiff] claims that a visible [fence, monument, building, or natural features treated as a boundary] between [name of plaintiff]'s property and [name of defendant]'s property is a "boundary by acquiescence," that should be recognized as the legal boundary between the properties.

To establish [name of plaintiff]'s claim of boundary by acquiescence, [he or she] must prove each of the following elements by clear and convincing evidence:

1. There is a visible line between [name of plaintiff]'s property and [name of defendant]'s property that is marked by a [fence, monument, building, or natural features treated as a boundary];

2. The past or present owners of [name of plaintiff]'s property occupied [name of plaintiff]'s property up to the visible line in a manner that would give a reasonable landowner notice that the past or present owners of [name of plaintiff]'s property were using the line as a boundary;

3. The past or present owners of [name of plaintiff] and [name of defendant]'s properties mutually acquiesced to in the line as a boundary between the properties; and

4. For a continuous period of at least 20 years without interruption.

Provenance

Source
legacy.utcourts.gov
Retrieved
2026-08-22
Edition
2026-08-21
Content hash
6d4b0c4d1ebd48a7df3c66da06393621b11bc0cdab474483006c54901f0dbbee
View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.