Sauter v. Miller

James and Carol Miller appealed the quieting of title to certain real property in favor of Julie Sauter. The Millers argued the district court erred in finding Sauter acquired ownership of the disputed property by adverse possession, finding the boundary of the property was established by acquiescence, finding the Millers breached their contract and trespassed on Julie Sauter's property, and awarding Julie Sauter attorney's fees. Prior to taking ownership in 2013, the Miller property was owned by Kurt and Katina Heinrich. In 2012, Julie Sauter and the Heinrichs entered into a grazing lease for a two-year period expiring in 2014. However, before the lease expired, the Heinrichs sold their property to the Millers and no longer had use for the Sauter property. The Millers did not have the property surveyed prior to the purchase. Julie Sauter allowed the Heinrichs to sublease the land to the Millers for the 2013 grazing year. For the 2014 grazing season, Julie Sauter and the Millers entered into a new lease. In 2013, the Millers wanted to drill a water well on their property which required the land to be surveyed. The survey revealed the Original fence did not follow the actual boundary line of the two properties. The Millers tore down the Original fence, constructed a new fence on the surveyed boundary line, and drilled a water well on the disputed property. The right to ownership of land and passage of title, as a consequence of adverse possession or acquiescence, occur when the statutory period for possession has been satisfied. The continuous possession requirement for adverse possession and acquiescence is not disturbed by a nonacquiescent action that brings rise to the quiet title action. The Millers argued the district court erred because there was no proof of acquiescence by themselves or their predecessors in interest, the statutory period for possession was disturbed, and acquiescence was inapplicable because the Original fence was nothing more than a barrier. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment on acquiescence, breach of contract, trespass, and attorney's fees. Because the Court affirmed on the issue of acquiescence, it did not reach the issue of adverse possession. View "Sauter v. Miller" on Justia Law