The corners and boundaries finally
established by the court in proceedings under this article, or an appeal therefrom, shall be
binding upon all the parties, their heirs and assigns, as the corners and boundaries that have been
lost, destroyed, or in dispute; but if it is found that the boundaries and corners alleged to have
been recognized and acquiesced in for twenty years have been so recognized and acquiesced in,
such recognized boundaries and corners shall be permanently established. The court order or
decree shall be recorded in the grantor-grantee index of the real property records of the county or
counties in which the land lies.
Source: L. 07: p. 288, § 9. Code 08: § 305. Code 21: § 306. Code 35: § 306. CRS 53: §
118-11-9. C.R.S. 1963: § 118-11-9. L. 2010: Entire section amended, (HB 10-1085), ch. 95, p.
326, § 8, effective August 11.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case:
Salazar v. Terry, 911 P.2d 1086 (Colo. 1996).
Salazar v. Terry, 911 P.2d 1086 (Colo. 1996).
· cites it 14× “*1088 In response, Salazar claimed adverse possession and asserted a counterclaim that the fence line was acquiesced in and recognized by the parties or their predecessors in title for twenty years under the terms of section 38-44-109, 16A C.R.S. (1982). Salazar also…”
Terry v. Salazar, 892 P.2d 391 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 3× “Terry now repeats her argument made before the trial court that the period of common ownership of the properties by Mills *393 Ranches abrogated any acquiescence chargeable to the parties concerning the fence as the actual division line. We agree.”
Hildebrand v. Olinger, 689 P.2d 695 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “On August 21,1981, pursuant to § 38-44-109, C.R.S. (1982 Repl.Vol.16A), plaintiff moved the trial court to determine and establish the disputed boundary based upon the commissioner’s report and map.”
Wilson v. Howe (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 3× “¶ 10 The Trust filed a quiet title action, asserting claims for (1) lot line adjustment by acquiescence, see § 38-44-109, C.R.S. 2024; (2) easement by estoppel; (3) irrevocable license; (4) prescriptive easement; and (5) adverse possession.”
Sundance Land Co., LLC v. Phillip Remmark & Bobbie Remmark, 8 N.W.3d 145 (Iowa 2024).
“at 1088 (quoting Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-44-109 (1982)). The case arose after the plaintiff commissioned a survey and discovered that the survey lines between her land and her neighbor’s land were actually 100 to 160 feet west of a substantial fence that had been present since…”
Sundance Land Co., LLC v. Phillip Remmark & Bobbie Remmark, 8 N.W.3d 145 (Iowa 2024).
“at 1088 (quoting Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-44-109 (1982)). The case arose after the plaintiff commissioned a survey and discovered that the survey lines between her land and her neighbor’s land were actually 100 to 160 feet west of a substantial fence that had been present since…”
Cumpston v. Neirinckx, 1 P.3d 752 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “1996)(one claiming title by adverse possession has the burden of proving the claim by a preponderance of the evidence); § 38-44-109, C.R.S.1999 (established common boundary binding upon all the parties).”
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.