Beck v. Neville

Summary

The court held that Arizona recognizes boundary by acquiescence and that a claimant must prove occupation to a clearly defined line, mutual acquiescence, ten years of continued acquiescence, and uncertainty or dispute concerning the true boundary by clear and convincing evidence. It further held that the Nevilles’ occasional partial vehicle parking did not establish the notice, occupation, open-and-notorious possession, hostility, or exclusivity required to acquire the disputed area by boundary by acquiescence or adverse possession. The court vacated the court of appeals’ decision and affirmed summary judgment for the Becks.