DISPUTE AND COMPROMISE

(A). To prove a consentable line by dispute and compromise, the following three elements must be satisfied: (1) a dispute with regard to the location of a common boundary line; (2) the establishment of a line; and (3) the giving up of their respective claims that are inconsistent with the line. Jedlicka v. Clemmer, 450 Pa. Super. 647, 677 A.2d 1232 (1996), citing Niles v. Fall Creek Hunting Club, Inc., 376 Pa. Super. 260, 545 A.2d 926 (1988)(en banc); Plott v. Cole, 377 Pa. Super. 585, 547 A.2d 1216 (1988).

(B). A consentable line is not created under the dispute and compromise theory where the parties are both unsure about the boundary location and, in an abundance of caution, adjust their fences and/or behavior in conformity with a line that turns out not to be the true boundary. However, this can become the boundary line after 21 years, under the recognition and acquiescence theory. Niles v. Fall Creek Hunting Club, Inc., 376 Pa. Super. 260, 545 A.2d 926 (1988)(en banc), citing Inn Le'Daerda, Inc. v. Davis, 241 Pa. Super. 150, 360 A.2d 209 (1976) (quoting Perkins v. Gay, 2 S&R 327 (1817))