Court Decides If Doctrine Of Practical Location Was Dispositive of Neighbors’ Border Dispute
Robert Czenszak and others commenced an action to quiet title and for declaratory relief against Anthony Iasello and Catherine Iasello. Czenszak aleged that a cinder block wall forms the boundary line between the parties’ adjoining properties under the doctrine of practical location and that a strip of land that lies between the cinder block wall boundary line and the boundary line set forth in the respective deeds to the adjoining properties—which is a small triangular strip of land measuring approximately 4.2 feet at its widest point—was owned by the Czenszak.
The Iasellos asserted a counterclaim for a judgment declaring that the boundary line between the adjoining properties was as described in the respective deeds and that they owned the disputed strip. They moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and on their counterclaim. Supreme Court searched the record and, under the doctrine of practical location, awarded summary judgment to Czenszak, declaring that he owned the disputed property. The Iasellos appealed.
Pursuant to the doctrine of practical location, a practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence for more than the statutory period is conclusive of the location of such boundary although such line may not in fact be the true line according to the calls of the deeds of the adjoining owners. The application of the doctrine requires a clear demarcation of a boundary line and proof that there was mutual acquiescence to the boundary by the parties such that it is definitely and equally known, understood and settled.
The parties did not dispute that the recorded boundary line was clearly demarcated on the respective deeds to the adjoining properties and the Iasellos submitted evidence that established that the parties’ respective predecessors in interest mutually acquiesced to the cinder block wall being the boundary line for the adjoining properties for a period of more than 10 years, rather than the boundary line set forth in the deeds.
Contrary to the Iasellos’ contention, an unknown or disputed boundary line and an agreement between adjoining owners fixing the true boundary line were not required elements for the doctrine of practical location to apply. Rather, practical location and long acquiescence in a boundary line are conclusive because they are of themselves proof that the location was correct.