Kubik v. Hauck
- Scott Kubik, Plaintiff and Appellant
Dominic Hauck, Defendant and Appellee
- Case Type
- CIVIL APPEAL : REAL PROPERTY
- Appeal From
Case No. 2020-CV-00079
Southwest Judicial District, Dunn County
Rhonda Rae Ehlis
Parties' Statement of Issues
1. Whether the District Court erred in finding that the Kubik Original Fence had not been the established boundary line for the statutorily required 20-year period.
2. Whether the District Court erred in concluding that Scott was not entitled quieted title in the disputed property under the doctrine of acquiescence.
3. Whether the District Court erred when it failed to find that Hauck trespassed to Scott’s real property and personal property.
1. Whether the District Court properly found that Kubik failed to meet his burden to prove adverse possession.
2. Whether the District Court correctly found that Kubik failed to meet his burden to prove that he is entitled to title by acquiescence.
3. Whether the District Court appropriately found Kubik’s action for trespass failed, and no evidence of damages was proven by Kubik.
Scott Kubik appeals from a judgment quieting title in favor of Dominic Hauck on their boundary line dispute.
Kubik and Hauck are adjacent landowners. Kubik sued Hauck to quiet title in a strip of land located on the south side of a fence line under the doctrines of adverse possession and acquiescence, and for trespassing and damaging his property. Hauck counterclaimed to quiet title in the disputed property. After a bench trial, the district court quieted title in favor of Hauck and denied Kubik’s claims of adverse possession, acquiescence, trespass, and damage to property.
On appeal, Kubik argues the district court erred in finding that the fence had not been the established boundary line for the statutorily required 20-year period, concluding he was not entitled to quieted title under the doctrine of acquiescence, and failing to find that Hauck trespassed.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||03/21/2022||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 03/21/2022|
|2||03/21/2022||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 03/22/2022|
|3||03/21/2022||Rec'd $125.00 Filing Fee|
|4||03/22/2022||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|5||03/22/2022||Notice Served on Jordan L. Selinger and Sandra K. Kuntz|
|6||04/22/2022||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED APRIL 21, 2022 (ENTRY NOS. 1-140)|
|7||05/19/2022||MOT. EXT/TIME TRANSCRIPT|
|8||05/19/2022||ACTION BY TRIAL COURT - Granted : 06/20/2022|
|9||06/22/2022||ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED JUNE 21, 2022 (ENTRY NOS. 141-144 )|
|10||06/22/2022||All Transcripts Filed in Record|
|11||06/23/2022||2ND ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED JUNE 22, 2022 (ENTRY NOS.145-147)|
|13||08/01/2022||Oral Argument Request by Appellant|
|14||08/03/2022||Rec'd 3 copies of ATB from CSD|
|16||08/30/2022||Oral Argument Request by Appellee|
|17||09/01/2022||Rec'd 3 copies of AEB back from CD|
|19||09/15/2022||Rec'd 3 copies of RYB back from CD|
|20||09/21/2022||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|21||10/03/2022||APPEARANCES: Jordan L. Selinger and Sandra K. Kuntz|
|22||10/03/2022||ARGUED: Jordan L. Selinger and Sandra K. Kuntz|
|23||10/03/2022||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|