Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
David Baculis and Karen Baculis v. Diana B. Baculis
Citation: Not availableDocket: 15-1873
Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa; August 31, 2016; Iowa; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
David and Karen Baculis appealed a district court decision that denied their petition to establish a boundary line by acquiescence against Diana B. Baculis. The court found in favor of Diana, concluding that David and Karen did not provide clear evidence of mutual recognition of a boundary line over the required ten-year period. The court noted that testimonies were contradictory, particularly regarding the location of the claimed boundary line and the fence line's history, which David acknowledged had shifted multiple times. The court also highlighted that no witnesses confirmed Diana's consent to the boundary line as claimed by David and Karen. Consequently, the appellate court upheld the district court's ruling, affirming the dismissal of the petition. The standard of review was for correction of errors at law, confirming that findings supported by substantial evidence are binding on the appellate court. Maintenance provided by David and Karen was not proven to be the exclusive maintenance in the disputed area. They failed to demonstrate that Diana and her ex-husband consented to their boundary claim after purchasing the property in 1993. The court found Diana's testimony credible, indicating that the former owner also did not consent to the claimed boundary. There was insufficient evidence that a partial fence was mutually recognized as a boundary for ten years by both parties. Additionally, the tree line did not establish an acquiesced boundary, as there was a two to three foot gap from the fence, and the trees were planted in 1995, which does not support mutual agreement or recognition of a boundary line. David and Karen did not provide clear evidence that the asserted property line was treated as a boundary or acknowledged as such by both parties for the required duration. Consequently, their claims for injunctive relief and a decree quieting title were denied. The district court's decision was upheld based on substantial evidence.