## Facts

- A 1909 survey subdivided a one-square-mile tract into lots; Lot 57 (about 10.88 acres) was shown on a recorded subdivision map (1910), and the parties did not dispute the survey’s accuracy.
- Lot 57 was split into a west half (later acquired by E. Jackson and Theressa Bryant in 1986) and an east half (acquired by Reed and Jean Blevins in 1977).
- After 1965, the east-half owners erected a barbed-wire fence that physically separated the two parcels.
- The Blevinses were told the fence marked the boundary, later replaced the fence, and used the enclosed strip (about 0.4 acres).
- After the Bryants purchased the west half, an assessor’s map and a survey indicated the fence line encroached onto the Bryants’ record-described land.
- The Bryants sued to establish the boundary at the recorded line rather than the fence.

## Issues

1. Whether the agreed-boundary doctrine applies when reliable recorded surveys and descriptions provide a reasonable basis to fix the boundary.
2. Whether long-term occupation up to a fence, based on a mistaken belief that it is the boundary, can establish an agreed boundary without proof that uncertainty about the true line led to an actual agreement.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the Blevinses and remanded with directions to quiet title according to the record boundary.
- The court held the agreed-boundary doctrine was inapplicable because the recorded map and descriptions provided a reasonable basis to locate the true line.
- The court further held the Blevinses failed to prove that uncertainty about the boundary led the neighbors to agree to adopt the fence line as the boundary.
- The court rejected the inference that a boundary agreement could be established solely from the existence of the fence and long acquiescence in it.

## Legal Principles

- Boundaries are generally determined by record title; the agreed-boundary doctrine is a narrow exception.
- The agreed-boundary doctrine requires: (1) uncertainty or ignorance as to the true boundary, (2) an agreement (express or implied) fixing a line, and (3) acceptance and acquiescence for a limitations period or circumstances making denial inequitable.
- Where available legal records provide a reasonable basis for determining the boundary, courts should not use the agreed-boundary doctrine to displace the record line absent strict proof of the doctrine’s elements.
- Occupation up to a fence under a mistaken belief that the fence is on the true boundary does not, by itself, establish an agreement fixing the boundary.
- Long-standing acquiescence and a fence may be circumstantial evidence of agreement, but they cannot substitute for proof of both prior uncertainty and an actual agreement to settle that uncertainty.

## Conclusion

The court required adherence to recorded boundaries and limited the agreed-boundary doctrine to cases where genuine uncertainty about the true line leads adjoining owners to agree on a boundary, rejecting the use of a fence and long acquiescence alone to override reliable record title.


Bryant v. Blevins, 9 Cal. 4th 47, 884 P.2d 1034 (Cal. 1994)