In Senez v. Collins, 182 Md. App. 300, No. 111, Sept. Term 2007, slip op. at 19-20, 957 A.2d 1057 (filed Oct. 3, 2008), Mr. and Ms. Collins and Ms. Senez owned adjoining properties separated by a wall that did not track the actual property line. The Collins sued Senez for trespass on a portion of property that belonged to them by title, but was situated on Senez's side of the wall; Senez counterclaimed for title to the disputed area based on adverse possession. Shortly before the expiration of the statutory twenty-year period, Senez had hired a contractor to erect a "privacy fence" along the wall that separated the properties. The parties agreed that, before the fence was installed, Senez and Ms. Collins had discussed where the fence was to be located. However, the parties disputed the details of the conversation. Id. In Ms. Collins' version, Senez "asked her, before she built the privacy fence, 'can my fence follow the wall instead of the property line?'" In contrast, Senez "recalled that she 'mentioned' to Ms. Collins that her contractor had suggested placement of the fence 'up on top of the Wall,' rather than alongside it, so as to 'eliminate that small space between the fence and the Wall.'" The circuit court did not resolve the conflicting evidence as to what was said, and we remanded for further fact finding, noting that "interpretation of the legal effect of such a conversation is contingent on the precise facts of the conversation." The Court explained, id.: "Ms. Collins's account of her conversation with Senez, if believed, may be seen as an acknowledgment by Senez of the Collins' superior right to the disputed area, which would defeat the hostility required for adverse possession. On the other hand, Senez's version of the conversation . . . coupled with her conduct in erecting the fence without the Collins's permission, would not evince such an acknowledgment."