PIRTLE, Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Wainio Enterprises, LLC (Wainio), filed an action in the district court for Morrill County against Fern Acres, Ltd. (Fern), seeking a determination of the boundary between certain tracts of real property owned by the parties, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 34-301 (Cum. Supp. 2010). Wainio also sought damages for Fern's alleged trespass onto Wainio's property, as well as a permanent injunction against any future incursions onto its property and a requirement for Fern to remove fencing it had constructed on Wainio's property. Fern's answer included a counterclaim, also seeking a determination of the boundary. At trial, Fern amended the complaint by interlineation and the parties stipulated that they were seeking a determination only of the southeast corner and a portion of the east boundary. The district court established a boundary between the properties and found no evidence of damages as a result of any trespass. Fern has appealed, asserting that the district court erred in setting the boundary location. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm. Pursuant to this court's authority under Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-111(B)(1) (rev. 2008), this case was ordered submitted without oral argument.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a dispute between adjoining landowners, Wainio and Fern, regarding a portion of the property line separating their respective tracts of land. Fern owned both tracts until October 24, 2003, when it sold "Section 24, Township 19 North, Range 49 West of the 6th P.M.," in Morrill County, to Robert Wainio pursuant to an "Agreement for Sale of Real Estate" (Agreement). The legal description of the property is as follows:

On the same date, Fern signed and recorded a warranty deed which provided that it was conveying the above-described property, as well as "[a]ny and all land owned by the Seller in said Section 24 lying South of the South bank of the North Platte river, together with all accretions thereto." Fern also signed and recorded a quitclaim deed which conveyed to Robert Wainio: "All that part of Section 24 lying South of the South right of way line of the Beerline Irrigation Company Canal."

In an addendum to the Agreement, Fern and Robert Wainio agreed to obtain a survey of the portion of section 24 lying south of the North Platte River, which survey was completed in May 2004 and revised in October 2004. Robert Wainio later died, and his widow and estate administrator issued an administrator's deed for section 24 to Wainio in 2006. When the property was purchased by James Cabela, Wainio assigned all rights in this litigation to Cabela in February 2010. The "plaintiff" in this case has been referred to as "Wainio" throughout the proceedings below and, for the sake of consistency, on appeal to this court.

In October 2008, Fern entered into a boundary line agreement with the owners of the surveyed property lying south of the North Platte River and quitclaimed the property acquired under the boundary line agreement to Wainio. Exhibit 11 reflects that this boundary line agreement was filed with the county clerk and register of deeds "at Book 72 of [the] Miscellaneous record [at] pages 563-565."

The dispute between Fern and Wainio originated in June 2008, when Wainio discovered a new fence under construction by Fern in the southeast corner of section 24. Wainio asked Fern to cease and desist construction of the fence, to remove the portion constructed on Wainio's property, and to vacate its property. This action was filed after Fern refused to remove the fence.

Kelly Beatty, a land surveyor, testified at trial that in May 2004, Fern had asked him to conduct a survey of the then-existing fence line in section 24; of section 19, located just to the east; and of sections 25 and 30, which are south of section 24 and on the other side of the river. Fern wanted Beatty to describe the fence line by a metes and bounds description. Although Beatty never returned again to the property, he later revised his survey at Fern's request to show the accretion boundary line to the river. Beatty testified that he did so, based on state surveyor rules, by drawing a line that went to "the geographical center lines of the river based upon the original meander lines being drawn." A notation on the revised survey, in evidence as exhibit 42, states that it is the "Approx[imate] Accretion Boundary Line based on perpendicular to C/L [centerline of the] River between meander lines." Beatty explained:

The construction of the new fence in 2008 was located approximately along this perpendicular accretion line.

Following a detailed discussion of measurements of meander lines, Beatty testified that he assumed that the phrase in the warranty deed which stated, "bounded on the South by the North bank of the North Platte River," meant the north meander line. Beatty has not seen the new fence that resulted in the instant litigation. He acknowledged that he was never asked to find the boundary lines of any particular parcel of ground and also that there were no monuments or other markers located at the point at which he placed the accretion boundary line on exhibit 42.

Donald Cunningham, a member of Fern, testified that he removed the old existing fence, located slightly to the west of the section line, and constructed the new fence after his lease on the property ended. He testified that the original fence had never been considered to be the eastern boundary of the property. In constructing the new fence, Cunningham used "coordinates" from Beatty as well as the assistance of a "hand-held GPS unit," and he acknowledged that he did not use a surveyor to stake it out for placement. When challenged that he did not know whether the new fence was anywhere close to the approximate accretion boundary described by Beatty, Cunningham replied that "I will bet it's within a foot," referring to some pipe at the corner of the accretion ground. Cunningham testified that he believed the new fence line located on the accretion ground was the proper east boundary of the property.

The district court found that the purpose of Beatty's survey had been to establish a boundary with Fern's south neighbor and was never for the purpose of establishing an eastern boundary. The court noted that Fern deeded the metes and bounds lands and the accretions thereto via the warranty deed and, most significantly, also quitclaimed everything it owned in section 24 south of the south right-of-way line of the Beerline Irrigation Company Canal. Fern thus deeded any interest it owned in section 24 south of the canal to Wainio. The court concluded that Fern cannot now successfully claim land in section 24 as sought in this case. The court set forth a legal description of the property for the southeast corner and the east boundary line, corresponding in part to the legal description found in exhibit 11:

As to the remaining causes of action, the court found that although Fern had trespassed on Wainio's land, there was no evidence of monetary damages. The court also found in favor of Fern on Wainio's third cause of action for a permanent injunction and removal of the fence.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Fern alleges that the district court erred in finding that the boundary line between the parties' property followed the section line south of the north meander line into the accretion ground and erred by failing to establish the boundary in the accretion ground on a line perpendicular to the center channel of the river, parallel to the west boundary line. Fern also contends that the district court erred by establishing the boundary line on the section line instead of the old fence line, asserting that the court granted relief to Wainio that was not sought in its complaint or requested at trial.

ANALYSIS

The sole issue on appeal is the district court's placement of the east boundary and the southeast corner between the parties' tracts of land. Section 34-301 provides in part:

An action to ascertain and permanently establish corners and boundaries of land under § 34-301 is an equity action. Anderson v. Cumpston, 258 Neb. 891, 606 N.W.2d 817 (2000); Babel v. Schmidt, 17 Neb.App. 400, 765 N.W.2d 227 (2009). In an equity action, an appellate court reviews the record de novo and reaches an independent conclusion without reference to the conclusion reached by the trial court, except that where credible evidence is in conflict, the appellate court will give weight to the fact that the trial court saw the witnesses and observed their demeanor while testifying. See Sila v. Saunders, 274 Neb. 809, 743 N.W.2d 641 (2008).

Fern asks that this court reverse the district court's decision and find that the east boundary of section 24 be placed on the accretion ground drawn by surveyor Beatty as a line perpendicular to the centerline of the North Platte River. Fern notes that the accretion ground south of the north meander line is described in the warranty deed as "and all accretions thereto." Brief for appellant at 7. We note here that accretion is the process of gradual and imperceptible addition of solid material, called alluvion, thus extending the shoreline out by deposits made by contiguous water. See Babel v. Schmidt, supra.

The record reflects that there was no survey related to Beatty's perpendicular line, that there was no legal description for the accretion boundary, and that no flags or monuments of any kind were at the location of the purported boundary line. Rather, Beatty's 2004 survey was commissioned for the purpose of obtaining a metes and bounds description of the then-existing fence line and to obtain a quitclaim deed from the owner to the south. The quitclaim deed provided that Fern was conveying to Robert Wainio "[a]ll that part of Section 24 lying South of the South right of way line of the Beerline Irrigation Company Canal." In addition, the Agreement and the warranty deed provide that the southern boundary of the property is the north bank of the North Platte River; the Agreement states that the property includes "any and all land owned by [Fern] in said Section 24 lying South of the South bank of the North Platte river, together with all accretions thereto." Through the Agreement, warranty deed, and quitclaim deed, Fern deeded any interest it owned in section 24, south of the Beerline Irrigation Company Canal, to Wainio, including any purported accretion land.

A contract written in clear and unambiguous language is not subject to interpretation or construction and must be enforced according to its terms. Davenport Ltd. Partnership v. 75th & Dodge I, L.P., 279 Neb. 615, 780 N.W.2d 416 (2010). In addition, a party who seeks to have title in real estate quieted in him on the ground that it is accretion to land to which he had title has the burden of proving the accretion by the preponderance of the evidence. Babel v. Schmidt, supra; Madson v. TBT Ltd. Liability Co., 12 Neb.App. 773, 686 N.W.2d 85 (2004). We conclude that Fern did not meet its burden to prove that the east boundary of section 24 should be placed on the accretion ground shown on exhibit 42 as a line perpendicular to the centerline of the North Platte River.

In its second assigned error, Fern asserts that the district court erred in fashioning a remedy beyond the scope requested by either party. We disagree. Although the parties each proposed a different boundary, the court was asked to determine a portion of the east boundary and southeast corner of the property. This it did in accordance with the parties' Agreement and deeds, as described above. Upon our de novo review, we cannot say that the court erred in setting the boundary as it did. Fern's assignment of error is without merit.

CONCLUSION

There was no legal description of the accretion boundary marked by surveyor Beatty on his maps. On our de novo review, we conclude that the district court did not err in establishing the southeast corner and eastern boundary as described in its order, and we affirm.

AFFIRMED.