Ramos v. Potkowksi

“Boundary-by-agreement is a common law doctrine with three elements; (1) There must have been an initial and mutual uncertainty about the true location of the boundary; (2) There must have been a resolution to the uncertainty by either an express or implied agreement mutually agreed upon by both parties to recognize the boundary line permanently; and (3) Evidence of the agreement by subsequent action by parties such as a written agreement, or occupying the property up to the borderline in the case of an oral agreement.” Powers Ranch Company v. Plum Creek Marketing, 243 Or App 371 (2011).”

Plaintiffs appealed a judgment dismissing their claims for trespass and ejectment, also finding in favor of Defendant's counterclaims, rendering Defendants to be owners of the disputed property. Plaintiffs assigned error to the trial court's ruling that there was an oral boundary agreement. On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that the evidence did not support a legal conclusion that both parties were uncertain of the property boundaries, claiming that such uncertainty was unilaterally held by Defendant. Plaintiff additionally argued that the parties had still disagreed on a boundary line. Defendant argued that there was a property line agreement orally expressed between the previous owners of both properties prior to either parties’ conveyances. “Boundary-by-agreement is a common law doctrine with three elements; (1) There must have been an initial and mutual uncertainty about the true location of the boundary; (2) There must have been a resolution to the uncertainty by either an express or implied agreement mutually agreed upon by both parties to recognize the boundary line permanently; and (3) Evidence of the agreement by subsequent action by parties such as a written agreement, or occupying the property up to the borderline in the case of an oral agreement.” Powers Ranch Company v. Plum Creek Marketing, 243 Or App 371 (2011). The Court reasoned that, just because there is a mutual mistake about the location of the true boundary does not resolve a bona fide uncertainty about the true boundary. As such, the trial court erred in determining that any uncertainty as to the boundary line had been resolved by a mutual oral agreement. Reversed and Remanded.