Acquiescence Boundary Line Doctrine In Wyoming

This doctrine "of recognition and acquiescence of a boundary line" still is recognized in Wyoming, although it has not been applied in the following cases:

     Kimball v. Turner, 993 P.2d 303 (Wyo. 1999);

     Coumas v. Transcontinental Garage, 68 Wyo. 99, 230 P.2d 748 (1951);

     Hudson v. Erickson, 67 Wyo. 167, 216 P.2d 379 (1950);

     Johnson v. Szumowicz, 63 Wyo. 211, 179 P.2d 1012 (1947);

     State v. Vanderkoppel, 45 Wyo. 432, 19 P.2d 955 (1933);

     Porter v. Carstensen, 40 Wyo. 156, 274 P. 1072 (1929).

None of these cases arose in the context of a summary judgment, and all of them were found to be distinguishable from Carstensen for various reasons.

This case was not decided on the doctrine of acquiescence and recognition, but it indeed serves as a correct, legal ground upon which we can affirm the trial court.

We will affirm a grant of summary judgment if it can be sustained on any legal ground appearing in the record. Franks v. Olson, 975 P.2d 588, 592 (Wyo. 1999); Newberry v. Board of County Comm'rs of Fremont County, 919 P.2d 141, 144 (Wyo. 1996); Duncan v. Town of Jackson, 903 P.2d 548, 551 (Wyo. 1995); Bidache Inc. v. Martin, 899 P.2d 872, 874 (Wyo. 1995); Moncrief v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co., 861 P.2d 516, 523 (Wyo. 1993).