Arizona Supreme Court: No. CV-22-0134-PR Filed January 9, 2024
Beck v. Neville
Outcome of the case: The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the Becks, rejecting the Nevilles’ claims of boundary by acquiescence and adverse possession.
ISSUES: Whether Arizona recognizes “boundary by acquiescence” as a valid cause of action, and, if so, what elements are required to prove boundary by acquiescence; what standard of proof is required for boundary by acquiescence claims; what is required to establish the “open and notorious” element of an adverse possession claim.
OPINION: Arizona recognizes boundary by acquiescence as a valid cause of action, and that clear and convincing evidence is required to prove each element of a boundary by acquiescence claim. The elements of such claim are: (1) occupation or possession of property up to a clearly defined line; (2) mutual acquiescence by adjoining landowners in that line as the dividing line; (3) continued acquiescence for ten years; and (4) uncertainty or dispute as to the true boundary. Finally, limited use (parking a car partially on an adjoining property) is insufficient to establish open and notorious possession for an adverse possession claim.
Dissents and concurrences:
The opinion notes that Vice Chief Justice Timmer concurred in the result but expressed concern at the majority’s opinion that the Enabling Act, the Declaration of Independence and its proclamation of “natural right[s]” similarly constrain Arizona’s constitution, stating she was “unwilling to commit to that position absent argument from interested parties and a comprehensive study of the issue, neither of which occurred in this case.”