When one or more owners of land, the
corners and boundaries of which are lost, destroyed, or in dispute, desire to have the same
established, they may bring an action in the district court of the county where such lost, disputed,
or destroyed corners or boundaries or parts thereof are situated against the owners of the other
tracts which would be affected by the determination or establishment thereof, to have such
corners or boundaries ascertained and permanently established. If any public road is likely to be
affected thereby, the proper county shall be made a party defendant.
Source: L. 07: p. 286, § 1. Code 08: § 297. Code 21: § 298. Code 35: § 298. CRS 53: §
118-11-1. C.R.S. 1963: § 118-11-1.
Cross references: For alternative solution of boundary or corner dispute, see § 38-44-
112.
Notes of Decisions
Durbin v. Bonanza Corp., 716 P.2d 1124 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “The Durbins brought suit seeking a determination of the disputed boundary pursuant to § 38-44-101, C.R.S., et seq. (1982 Repl. Vol.”
Littlefield v. Bamberger, 32 P.3d 615 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
“Acquiescence to Boundaries Finally, defendants contend that a public right-of-way exists under § 38-44-101, et seq., C.R.S.2000, because the parties or their predecessors in interest acquiesced in the fence lines being their boundaries for more than twenty consecutive years.”
Smith v. Hayden, 772 P.2d 47 (Colo. 1989).
“The Riedels also sought by counterclaim to establish the boundary in its historical location by recognition and acquiescence pursuant to §§ 38-44-101 to -112, 16A C.R.S. (1982). The trial court did not consider this claim but instead ruled for the Riedels based on adverse…”
Canady v. Shelden, 683 P.2d 1205 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 5× “1973, has jurisdiction to try such matters, including a proceeding under § 38-44-101, C.R.S.1973, so long as the amount of the claim or the value of the property involved does not exceed $5,000.”
Hildebrand v. Olinger, 689 P.2d 695 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984).
“It was ultimately presented to the court for determination and establishment of the boundary in dispute between plaintiff, Margaret Hildebrand, and defendants, Vern and Sunny Dee Olinger, adjoining property owners, pursuant to §§ 38-44-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1982 Repl.”
Roger E. Agee Revocable Trust v. Mang, 919 P.2d 908 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “In 1987, defendants filed a petition in district court seeking to establish the boundary lines of their land pursuant to § 38-44-101, C.R.S. (1982 Repl.Vol. 16A).”
Brewster v. Nandrea, 705 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1985).
· cites it 3× “The Nandreas requested that the court appoint a boundary commission to determine the boundary between the Nan-dreas’ and Lennon’s property under sections 38-44-101 to 38-44-112, 16A C.R.”
Chappell v. Bonds, 677 P.2d 955 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
“Conceding that § 38-44-101 et seq., C.R. S.1973 (1982 Repl.”
Nandrea v. Bd. of Commissioners, 663 P.2d 1068 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
“Lennon, an adjacent landowner, had erected improvements on a portion of their property and asked that the court, in accordance with § 38-44-101, et seq., C.R.S.1973 (1982 Repl.”
Cumpston v. Neirinckx, 1 P.3d 752 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).
“an action under § 38-44-101 within six months' of the county surveyor's decision.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.