Opinion
GEORGE, J. When coterminous landowners are uncertain as to the true location of their common boundary, they may establish that boundary by agreement, pursuant to a legal theory commonly referred to as the “agreed-boundary” doctrine. This case presents the question whether a court should [50]apply that doctrine to resolve a boundary dispute where available legal records provide a reasonable basis for fixing the boundary and the party relying upon the doctrine fails to establish that uncertainty as to the location of the true boundary led to an agreement between the landowners to create a boundary at an agreed-upon location. We hold that the doctrine is inapplicable under these circumstances. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the trial court’s finding that the doctrine applied to this case.
I.
Plaintiffs E. Jackson and Theressa Bryant and defendants Reed and Jean Blevins own adjoining parcels of real property in Herald, located in a rural portion of southern Sacramento County, east of Galt. The parcels resulted from a division of “Lot 57,” a 10.88-acre lot contained within a 1-square-mile tract of land that was divided in 1909 into 64 parcels, each approximately 10 acres in size. Lot 57, the largest lot within the subdivision, is configured as shown in the following diagram (which is not drawn to scale):
[[Image here]]
The original owners of Lot 57, Sheldon and Melda Brandenburger, also were the developers and subdividers of the entire 64-lot subdivision. The subdivision was surveyed in 1909 and was recorded in 1910. The parties to the present dispute do not dispute the accuracy of the 1909 survey. At the [51]time the Brandenburgers created the subdivision, they conveyed the west one-half of Lot 57 to the Haak family, plaintiffs’ predecessors in interest, and retained the east one-half for themselves.1 In 1965, the Brandenburgers conveyed the “East one-half’ of Lot 57 to Aldridge and Patricia Reynolds who, in turn, conveyed the property to defendants 12 years later, in 1977. Plaintiffs acquired title to the west one-half of Lot 57 in 1986.
Defendants testified they were familiar with the property for many years prior to purchasing it. Mrs. Blevins, who had lived in the area for more than 50 years, recalled having seen the property many times while riding a covered wagon with her family riding-group in the 1950’s and 1960’s. She recalled from as early as the 1950’s seeing barbed wire perimeter fencing in the area, although the particular barbed wire fence dividing Lot 57 apparently was erected by the Reynoldses at some point after they acquired the east half of Lot 57 in 1965. After defendants acquired the property in 1977 from the Reynoldses, who had informed defendants that the barbed wire fence marked the boundary line, defendants replaced the fence with a sturdier, pipe panel fence erected at the same location.
Shortly after purchasing the west one-half of Lot 57, plaintiffs, in the course of laying out a fence line upon the perimeter of their parcel, discovered a discrepancy between the approximately 5.3 acres to which they believed they were entitled (based upon a description on the tax assessor’s map depicting Lot 57 as 10.63 acres in size, and divided along a line running between the midpoints of the lot’s north and south borders) and the area actually enclosed by the fence, which appeared to be approximately 4.9 acres in size. Defendants were unable to explain the discrepancy. Plaintiffs hired a surveyor, Monty Seibel, the owner of a local surveying business, to identify the true boundaries of the property.
Upon surveying Lot 57, Seibel discovered that the fence erected by defendants, at the same location as the previous barbed wire fence, was not located on the true boundary between the eastern and western halves of the property. In reaching this conclusion, Seibel verified his survey measurements against those set forth on the 1909 subdivision map, finding no significant discrepancies. Employing what he testified was the standard method for locating a property boundary where there has been a subdivision, Seibel identified the location of the boundary separating the parties’ parcels [52]by dividing Lot 57 into portions of equal area by means of a line drawn parallel to the outside boundary of the first parcel conveyed, that is, a line drawn parallel to the western edge of the west one-half of Lot 57. Defendants did not dispute Seibel’s methodology in conducting his survey (which Seibel recorded, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 8762) or its accuracy, and, in fact, stipulated to the admission in evidence of the survey at trial. As illustrated in the diagram, this survey fixed the true boundary separating the west and east halves of Lot 57 at a line east of the fence defendants had erected—approximately 11 feet east on the south border, widening to approximately 42 feet east at the north border.
Seibel’s survey thus identified a strip of land, comprising approximately 0.4 acres, bordered on the east by the true boundary separating the parties’ parcels, and on the west by the fence constructed by defendants. The rightful ownership of this strip of land, contested by the parties, is the subject of the present proceedings. When the Reynoldses owned the east portion of Lot 57, they used this land as the site for a septic tank and leach field, in order to service a recreational vehicle parked there. After acquiring title from the Reynoldses, the defendants made similar use of the land, employing it for the additional purposes of siting a horse corral and pasture, a storage trailer, and a woodlot. Defendants regularly trimmed the eucalyptus trees to which the barbed wire fence had been attached, and maintained the property so as to reduce the risk of fire.
After making unsuccessful attempts to persuade defendants to move the location of the fence that divided Lot 57, plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the disputed strip of land, to quiet title, for trespass, and for damages. Defendants cross-complained for declaratory relief to establish the boundaries, to quiet title, for a prescriptive easement, and for damages and fees. After a court trial on the parties’ respective claims, the trial court, among other findings, tentatively found no evidence to support application of the agreed-boundary doctrine to the facts of the present case, stating, at the conclusion of closing arguments: “[I] don’t believe that there has been any testimony ... to indicate there is any sort of dispute that arose when the persons got together and made an agreed fence.” Ultimately, however, despite the absence of such evidence, the trial court found that an uncertainty existed as to the location of the true boundary line, and that an agreement to fix the boundary at the fence also existed, so as to support application of the agreed-boundary doctrine, based upon the long-standing acceptance of, and acquiescence in, the location of the fence. As a consequence, the trial court concluded that, under the agreed-boundary doctrine, defendants should be awarded title to the disputed area up to the claimed boundary fence. The Court of Appeal affirmed as to this issue and, in view of that disposition, [53]concluded it was unnecessary to reach plaintiffs’ remaining challenges to the trial court’s findings that defendants had acquired title to a portion of the disputed area based upon a theory of adverse possession, and that defendants were entitled to a prescriptive easement as to the balance of the disputed area. Plaintiffs thereafter sought review from this court.
II.
Plaintiffs’ contention that the disputed area belongs to them is premised upon the uncontroverted survey performed by Monty Seibel in 1987, which, as noted, was not at variance with either the original subdivision map drawn in 1909, when Lot 57 was drawn and subdivided, or with the undisputed deed descriptions of the respective parcels, each of which refers to the ownership of one-half of Lot 57. Plaintiffs further contend that, in the present era of sophisticated surveying techniques and ready access to legal descriptions of real property aided by computer networks and other modem technology, the justification for the agreed-boundary doctrine, upon which the Court of Appeal relied in concluding the disputed area belonged to defendants, has withered and all but disappeared. Plaintiffs argue that the Court of Appeal’s expansive application of the doctrine undermines the significance of legal descriptions and encourages litigation and that, therefore, as a matter of policy, the agreed-boundary doctrine should not apply when the tme boundary is objectively certain—that is, when a reliable legal description of the tme boundary exists. Accordingly, they urge this court to narrow the application of the doctrine to only those cases in which “legal records fail to settle a boundary dispute.” (Mesnick v. Caton (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1248, 1256 [228 Cal.Rptr. 779].)
In response, defendants contend the disputed area rightfully belongs to them, noting that the barbed wire fence separating the parcels had stood for several years without controversy as the apparent boundary between the west and east “halves” of Lot 57. Defendants contend the Court of Appeal correctly held it was reasonable, in view of the long-standing presence of the fence, to infer that the parties’ predecessors in interest were uncertain as to the location of the tme boundary separating the parcels, and agreed to rely upon the fence as the boundary. Thus, defendants contend, the Court of Appeal properly applied the agreed-boundary doctrine.
As we shall explain, we reject defendants’ contentions. In our view, the Court of Appeal adopted an unduly expansive interpretation of the agreed-boundary doctrine and improperly rejected the analysis set forth in other, well-reasoned Court of Appeal decisions that have held the doctrine is not properly applicable in cases, such as this one, in which there is no evidence [54]that prior owners of adjoining parcels of real property entered into an agreement to resolve a boundary dispute and where available legal records provided a reasonable basis for fixing the boundary. In the present case, because defendants, while relying upon the agreed-boundary doctrine, failed to demonstrate that an uncertainty as to the true boundary line led the prior coterminous owners to agree to fix the boundary separating the parties’ respective parcels of real property at the location of the barbed wire fence, we conclude that the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the application of the agreed-boundary doctrine.
Notwithstanding the conclusion we reach in this case, we decline to limit application of the agreed-boundary doctrine to instances in which existing legal records are inadequate to settle a boundary dispute. As previous cases have explained, such an inflexible rule would risk destabilizing long-standing agreements—made in good faith by coterminous property owners in order to resolve uncertainty as to the location of their common boundaries— that might, for any one of several reasons, be at variance with legal property descriptions or survey results. Instead, we reaffirm the vitality of the requirements necessary to establish the applicability of the agreed-boundary doctrine, set forth in Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church (1959) 51 Cal.2d 702 [336 P.2d 525]. (See also Martin v. Lopes (1946) 28 Cal.2d 618, 624 [170 P.2d 881] [discussing the policy in favor of according stability to boundary agreements adopted in good faith by coterminous landowners and acquiesced in for a period longer than the statutory period of limitations for adverse possession].)
A.
The agreed-boundary doctrine constitutes a firmly established exception to the general rule that accords determinative legal effect to the description of land contained in a deed. One early case thus explains the basis for the agreed-boundary doctrine: “[T]he rule has been established that when such [coterminous] owners, being uncertain of the true position of the [common boundary described in their respective deeds], agree upon its true location, mark it upon the ground, or build up to it, occupy on each side up to the place thus fixed and acquiesce in such location for a period equal to the statute of limitations, or under such circumstances that substantial loss would be caused by a change of its position, such line becomes, in law, the true line called for by the respective descriptions, regardless of the accuracy of the agreed location, as it may appear by subsequent measurements. . . . [¶] ... [¶] The object of the rule is to secure repose, to prevent strife and disputes concerning boundaries, and make titles permanent and stable. . . . If a measurement is made and the line agreed on and acquiesced in as [55]required by this rule, it is binding on and applicable to all parties to the agreement and their successors by subsequent deeds.” (Young v. Blakeman (1908) 153 Cal. 477, 481-482 [95 P. 888]; see also Mello v. Weaver (1950) 36 Cal.2d 456, 459-460 [224 P.2d 691]; Martin v. Lopes, supra, 28 Cal.2d at pp. 622-627; Hannah v. Pogue (1944) 23 Cal.2d 849, 856-857 [147 P.2d 572]; 5 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (2d ed. 1989) Adjoining Landowners, § 14.1, pp. 304-308.)
Although the agreed-boundary doctrine is well established in California, our case law has recognized that the doctrine properly may be invoked only under carefully specified circumstances. As this court stated in Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church, supra, 51 Cal.2d 702, 707: “The requirements of proof necessary to establish a title by agreed boundary are well settled by the decisions in this state. [Citations.] The doctrine requires that there be [1] an uncertainty as to the true boundary line, [2] an agreement between the coterminous owners fixing the line, and [3] acceptance and acquiescence in the line so fixed for a period equal to the statute of limitations or under such circumstances that substantial loss would be caused by a change of its position.” (Ibid.)
In the years since we reiterated in Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church, supra, 51 Cal.2d 702, the requirements of the agreed-boundary doctrine, numerous Court of Appeal decisions have held that the doctrine should not be applied broadly to resolve boundary disputes where there is no evidence that the neighboring owners entered into an agreement to resolve a boundary dispute and where the true boundary is ascertainable from the legal description set forth in an existing deed or survey. (See, e.g., Armitage v. Decker (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 887, 902-904 [267 Cal.Rptr. 399]; Mesnick v. Caton, supra, 183 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1256-1258; Finley v. Yuba County Water Dist. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 691, 698-701 [160 Cal.Rptr. 423].) The common theme of these decisions is a deference to the sanctity of true and accurate legal descriptions and a concomitant reluctance to allow such descriptions to be invalidated by implication, through reliance upon unreliable boundaries created by fences or foliage, or by other inexact means of demarcation.
B.
In the present case, because defendants claimed title to the disputed strip of land under the agreed-boundary doctrine, they had the burden of proving each element necessary to establish the agreed boundary, including an agreement between the coterminous landowners to fix their common boundary at an agreed-upon line. Plaintiffs contend defendants failed to meet their burden of proving the existence of such an agreement. The Court of [56]Appeal rejected this contention and, in doing so, declined to follow the reasoning set forth in a recent decision rendered by another court in Armitage v. Decker, supra, 218 Cal.App.3d 887. As we shall explain, we conclude the Court of Appeal in the present case erred in rejecting the analysis set forth in Armitage.
Armitage v. Decker, supra, 218 Cal.App.3d 887, like the case before us, involved coterminous landowners whose lots were separated by an old fence. In Armitage, the plaintiff’s survey, based upon the legal description of the plaintiff’s lot set forth in the deed, revealed that the placement of the fence reduced the size of the defendant’s parcel by departing from the true boundary between the parties’ properties. Claiming ownership of the disputed strip of land on an adverse possession theory, the plaintiff contended he was entitled to the land under the agreed-boundary doctrine. The trial court, rejecting the plaintiff’s contention that his land extended to the fence, entered judgment for the defendant. The Court of Appeal affirmed, observing that, although the elements of uncertainty as to the true boundary and agreement to fix a boundary may be inferred from acceptance of a fence as a boundary for many years, the plaintiff was not entitled to prevail, because “proof of acquiescence in the existence of a fence without evidence of an agreement to take the fence as a boundary is not sufficient to establish an agreed boundary.” (Id., at p. 900.) Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish his case, because he “offered no direct proof that the fence had been built to resolve adjoining owners’ uncertainty as to the boundary between their lands. . . . [ ¶]• • • Absent proof of acceptance of the fence as a boundary by owners on both sides, there was no basis for an inference of uncertainty and agreement.” (Id., at p. 901.)
The court in Armitage, like the court in a similar case, Mesnick v. Caton, supra, 183 Cal.App.3d 1248, observed that strong policy justifications counsel against an expansive application of the agreed-boundary doctrine when a legal description of the true boundary exists: “The doctrine of agreed boundaries arose as a means to settle disputes over boundaries at a time when surveys were notoriously inaccurate and the monuments and landmarks they described often could not be found in later years. [Citations.] Given the difficulties of fixing boundaries according to the old surveys, courts properly recognized boundary lines which had served for lengthy periods of time as a practical boundary. [Citation.] The purpose of the doctrine of agreed boundaries is ‘ “to secure repose and prevent litigation.” ’ [Citations.] The doctrine is based on a policy of giving stability to agreements adjusting a disputed boundary ‘ “as a method adopted in good faith by the parties themselves to settle the controversy, and because it is the most satisfactory way whereby a true boundary line may be determined, and tends [57]to prevent litigation.” ’ [Citations.] [¶] In more recent times, however, accurate surveys are possible and verifiable recorded deeds are the rule. ... As recognized in Mesnick, to allow the doctrine of agreed boundaries to supersede recorded legal descriptions of the property where, as here, they are fully consistent, would not only destroy the significance of recorded instruments but would foster litigation rather than preventing it. [Citation.] While the doctrine of agreed boundaries has never been intended to be a means of divesting an unconsenting landowner of his property [citation], this is precisely its effect when used to overcome long-standing accurate legal descriptions of property." (Armitage v. Decker, supra, 218 Cal.App.3d at p. 903.)
In our view, the Court of Appeal in the present case incorrectly dismissed the sound logic set forth in Armitage. Although in certain circumstances the long-term acceptance of a fence as a boundary, in conjunction with the other pertinent factors we identified in Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church, supra, 51 Cal.2d 702, properly may support an inference that the coterminous landowners agreed to rely upon the fence in fixing an uncertain boundary, we believe the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that such an inference is warranted in the present case.
A comparison of the facts of the case before us with those underlying Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church, supra, 51 Cal.2d 702, is instructive. Ernie involved a property dispute over the ownership of a strip of land, slightly less than one foot wide and one hundred forty feet in length. In 1925, the defendant’s predecessor in interest (like the defendant, a church), purchased a parcel of land adjoining the property owned by plaintiff’s predecessor in interest. Shortly after having a survey made of the property, the defendant’s predecessor constructed a rectory and a cement walkway (with a fence embedded in it) upon the strip of land in question. These improvements remained in place for more than 26 years without objection from the adjoining owner, the plaintiff’s predecessor. At some point after purchasing the lot adjacent to the defendant’s property, the plaintiff commissioned a new survey of the land, based upon the descriptions set forth in the recorded deeds, and, when that survey indicated the disputed land fell within the description contained in the plaintiff’s deed, the plaintiff sued to establish her ownership of that strip. On these facts, the court in Ernie held: “It may be inferred that there was an uncertainty as to the true [boundary] at the time the structures were erected [presumably because the defendant’s predecessor had a survey conducted immediately prior to construction of the rectory, walkway and fence], which uncertainty was settled by practical location on the ground at that time and was agreed to by the then coterminous owners.” (51 Cal.2d at p. 708.) Accordingly, the court in Ernie held that the defendant [58]properly held title to the disputed strip of land under the agreed-boundary doctrine.
In the present case, by contrast, there is no evidence that the original barbed wire fence dividing Lot 57 was erected to resolve uncertainty as to the location of the property boundary that separated the west and east halves of the original lot. The record is silent as to when, or why, the fence was built. Although the presence of the fence since at least 1977 suggests a lengthy acquiescence to its existence (on the part of plaintiffs’ predecessors in interest), that circumstance alone did not nullify Ernie’s other requirements—namely, that there be an uncertainty as to the location of the true boundary when the fence was erected, and an agreement between the neighboring property owners to employ the location of the fence as the means of establishing the boundary. (51 Cal.2d at p. 707.) In the present case, there is no evidence to support the existence of either one of these prerequisites. As the court in Armitage explained, when existing legal records provide a basis for fixing the boundary, there is no justification for inferring, without additional evidence, that the prior owners were uncertain as to the location of the true boundary or that they agreed to fix their common boundary at the location of a fence. (218 Cal.App.3d at pp. 901-903.) In view of the significant policy considerations set forth in Armitage, the agreed-boundary doctrine should not be invoked under the circumstances of the present case to trump the boundary established by the legal records. (Id. at pp. 902-903.)
C.
We are aware of certain judicial authority, emanating from other jurisdictions, supporting the proposition that a conveyance of the “west half” and “east half” of real property does not necessarily signify that a mathematically equal division has been created, and that therefore such terminology may create an “uncertainty” as to the location of the common boundary of the parcels. Yet these decisions are patently distinguishable from the present case. (See Brewer v. Schammerhom (1958) 183 Kan. 739 [332 P.2d 526, 528] [rejecting an equal mathematical division of 163.69835 acres, where one parcel was described as the “south half’ but the previously deeded north parcel was referred to not as the “north half,” but as “the North 80 acres precisely”]; People v. Hall (1904) 43 Misc. 117 [88 N.Y.S. 276, 279] [“The words ‘east half’ and ‘west half’ in a deed, while naturally importing equal division, may lose that effect when it appears that at the time some fixed line or known boundary or monument divides the premises somewhere near the center . . . .” (Italics added.)].) In contrast to the parties in the cited decisions, defendants in the present case failed to present any evidence [59]suggesting that, at the time Lot 57 was subdivided (or at any point thereafter), anything other than an equal division was intended. To the contrary, the uncontroverted testimony of plaintiffs’ surveyor was that, in view of the general, unqualified language set forth in the legal descriptions of the properties, the subdivision of the original lot created “west” and “east” halves of equal area.2
As noted previously, the record contains absolutely no evidence supporting the premise that the barbed wire fence was erected to resolve uncertainty on the part of the parties’ predecessors in interest as to the true location of the boundary separating the properties. As others aptly have observed, barriers are built for many reasons,3 only one of which is to act as a visible boundary between parcels of real property; other considerations include aesthetics, the control of livestock, and the need to constrain young children from wandering too far from a residence. (See generally, Staniford v. Trombly (1919) 181 Cal. 372, 375 [186 P. 599] [because fence had been built to control cattle, and not as an agreed boundary, the court rejected the defendant’s claim to ownership of land based upon the agreed-boundary doctrine]; Dooley’s Hardware Mart v. Trigg (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 337, 339-341 [75 Cal.Rptr. 745] [where parties testified that a fence located one foot from their common boundary had been erected to comply with a local ordinance and did not result from an agreement to fix an uncertain boundary, the agreed-boundary doctrine did not apply]; see also Mesnick v. Caton, supra, 183 Cal.App.3d at p. 1258; Finley v. Yuba County Water Dist., supra, 99 Cal.App.3d at pp. 700-701.) Moreover, the precise placement of a fence may be influenced by a multitude of factors, only one of which is the location of one’s property line; other considerations include the suitability of the terrain to accept the fence, the presence of nearby landscaping, the skill of the builder, and even the subsequent movement of the fence through disrepair, pressure exerted by livestock, or loss of lateral and subjacent support.
Thus, a fence—which, in Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church, supra, 51 Cal.2d at page 708, we observed “might in and of [itself] be of an uncertain, [60]temporary or equivocal nature”—is not the type of “substantial structure[]” from which an agreement to accept an agreed boundary reasonably may be inferred in the absence of evidence that uncertainty on the part of the property owners led to their agreement to rely upon the fence as evidence of their common boundary, On the record before us, we conclude that defendants, as the parties invoking the agreed-boundary doctrine as the basis for their claim of title to the disputed strip of land, have not met their burden of proof under the test we set forth in Ernie.
Were we to hold that, in the absence of the explicit requirements set forth in Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church, supra, 51 Cal.2d 702, dilapidated—and perhaps meandering—fences constitute a sufficient basis for displacing the legal descriptions set forth in recorded deeds, we would be taking a significant step backward toward the days of unrecorded agreements and frontier justice, thereby injecting added uncertainty into this area of the law and spawning much needless litigation. The expansive interpretation of the agreed-boundary doctrine embraced by the Court of Appeal, and urged by the defendants here, clearly would add unnecessary expense and stress to the prospect of real property ownership in California. By contrast, our affirmation of the doctrine as a narrow theory that, in the absence of compliance with the requirements set forth in Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church, supra, 51 Cal.2d at page 707, may not be relied upon to supersede legal descriptions set forth in deeds, will encourage coterminous landowners to resolve their disputes not by erecting imperfect barriers, “drawing lines in the sand,” or hauling neighbors into court, but by resorting to title searches, deed descriptions, and other objectively certain methods that afford the parties a superior opportunity to reach an amicable, nonlitigious resolution of their disputes.
For the foregoing reasons, we reject the Court of Appeal’s application of the agreed-boundary doctrine to the facts of this case. In our view, an unduly broad application of the doctrine tacitly encourages a lack of due diligence on the part of property owners by tempting them not to consult legal descriptions in an effort to reach amicable resolution of their disputes, and instead induces property owners to resort to the courts to resolve their boundary disputes. We should not promote such a potentially litigious alternative. Guided by the principles set forth in Ernie, and mindful of the objectively certain legal description of defendants’ property and the absence of any evidence suggesting that uncertainty as to the true boundary led to the creation of a “fence-made” agreed boundary, we approve the reasoning set forth in Armitage v. Decker, supra, 218 Cal.App.3d 887, and hold that defendants have failed to establish the “uncertainty” and “agreement” required in order to establish an agreed boundary.
[61]III.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed. Because, in view of its disposition of the agreed-boundary issue, that court did not reach plaintiffs’ other challenges to the judgment of the trial court, the case is remanded to the Court of Appeal with directions to address plaintiffs’ remaining contentions.
Lucas, C. J., Arabian, J., Baxter, J., and Werdegar, J., concurred.
Although the deed evidencing the Brandenburgers’ conveyance of the west half of Lot 57 to the Haaks is not contained in the record, and therefore its exact language has not been adduced, the parties do not dispute that the Haaks received the west one-half of the parcel. Nor is there any dispute as to the accuracy of subsequent deeds, which are contained in the record and refer to the “west half” of Lot 57.
Monty Seibel’s survey revealed Lot 57 to be 10.88 acres in size; as noted above, the assessor’s map indicated the lot was 10.63 acres in size. This discrepancy fails to establish that prior owners were uncertain as to the location of their common boundary, or that they agreed to rely upon the barbed wire fence to identify that boundary. Seibel opined that the discrepancy resulted simply from the assessor’s not possessing sufficient information as to the location of the true boundary, thus causing the assessor to draw a north-south line at the center of Lot 57 as a matter of “convenience” for assessment purposes. An employee of the county tax assessor’s office, who testified on behalf of plaintiffs, in substance confirmed this view. Therefore, the discrepancy between Seibel’s survey and the county tax assessor’s information has no bearing upon defendants’ contention that the fence dividing Lot 57 constitutes the actual boundary between the west and east halves of the lot.
See Frost, Mending Wall (1914) (“Before I built a wall I’d ask to know/What I was walling in or walling out.”).