In Hancock v. Planned Dev. Corp., 791 P.2d 183, 185 (Utah 1990), the trial court determined that language in a deed that stated the deed was "subject to a fence line encroachment along the east line" reserved in the grantor the property east of the fence line, "which otherwise would have passed under the metes and bounds description." 791 P.2d at 185. However, we determined that the clause did not reserve the property to the grantor, but rather placed the grantee on notice that another may attempt to acquire the property by boundary by acquiescence "in order to insulate herself from a suit by . . . grantee . . . in the event that a claim of title to the strip of land by acquiescence proved to be valid." Id. at 185-86. Thus, the Court concluded that the defendant could obtain title to the property only by boundary by acquiescence, not under the "subject to" clause of the deed. Id. at 187.