Davis v. Meidinger CA3
This case concerns a boundary dispute between appellant Steve Meidinger (Meidinger) and respondents Mark David Davis and Kristina Lynne Davis (collectively the Davises). Meidinger argues the trial court erred in settling the disputed boundary according to the agreed boundary doctrine because there had been no uncertainty regarding the location of the boundary line. The Davises counter that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding of uncertainty. The Davises have moved for sanctions against Meidinger and his counsel, arguing this appeal indisputably lacks merit and was brought to harass the Davises.
We affirm the judgment and deny the Davises’s motion for sanctions.
Comments on Davis v. Meidinger CA3