Case Title: ROE v NEWMAN

Citation: 

Docket Number: 12379

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1973-05-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12379 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1973 GERTRUDE M. ROE, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, ABE B. NEWMAN, a s i n g l e man; A l l t h e h e i r s known and unknown of Abe B. Newman, deceased; GLACIER PIPELINE C O M P A N Y , a Corporation and JEAN KING RAHN, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Joseph P , Hennessey argued, Billings, Montana. For Respondents: Crowley, Kilbourne, Haughey, Hanson and Gallagher, Billings, Montana. Frank A. Gallagher argued, Billings, Montana. Submitted: March 26, 1973 Decided : BAY - 3 19, Filed: MAY - 3 1 : ; ; M r . J u s t i c e Gene B, Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. P l a i n t i f f Gertrude M. Roe i n i t i a t e d t h i s quiet t i t l e action i n the d i s t r i c t court of Yellowstone County. One of the named defendants, Jean King Rahn, f i l e d a cross complaint t o quiet t i t l e t o the property i n question t o her. The case was t r i e d t o the court and w r i t t e n b r i e f s , exhibits and s t i p u l a t i o n s of f a c t s were submitted, The t r i a l court found i n favor of defendant and cross complainant, Jean King Rahn, and entered an order quieting t i t l e t o the disputed property i n her favor. From t h a t r u l i n g and from the c o u r t ' s order denying her motion f o r a new t r i a l , Gertrude M. W o e brings t h i s appeal. The following i s an approximate diagram of the properties owned by the l i t i g a n t s and the disputed property: I Billings 1 --- -- 1 Govt. Lot 1 (Rahn) Govt. Lot 4 (Rahn) -'I @r "Accretion Land" M e a"flder____ Line Jean King Rahn i s the undisputed owner of l o t s designated on the o r i g i n a l p l a t a s Government Lot 4 located i n Section 15, Township 1 South, Range 26 East i n Yell-owstone County and Government Lot 1 adjacent t o Lot 4 i n Section 16. Gertrude M. Roe i s the undisputed owner of an island i n the Yellowstone River i n Section 15, near the Rahn property and separated from the north r i v e r bank by a high water channel. The land i n dispute i s a narrow s t r i p of r i v e r bank bordered on the north by a j o i n t l y maintained fence l i n e over 40 years old and on the south by the high water channel of the r i v e r . Both l i t i g a n t s f i l e d c e r t i f i c a t e s of survey. The surveys overlap con- cerning the disputed s t r i p . It appears from the record t h a t live- stock on t h e Roe property would, when the water l e v e l permitted, cross onto the disputed s t r i p of land t o graze, and t h a t Mrs. Roe occasionally cut firewood on the s t r i p , Mrs. Rahn contends the fence was merely a convenience fence enclosing her lands and was never acknowledged a s a boundary, It appears t h e o r i g i n a l established southern boundary of Lot 4 was a considerable distance north of the present r i v e r bank. Mrs. Rahn claims ownership up t o the r i v e r bank on the b a s i s t h a t the land accreted t o her Lot 4. It a l s o appears M r s . Roe's island was a t some time contiguous t o the south bank of the Yellowstone River, and t h e old Washington Street bridge across the r i v e r abutted on t h e eastern end of the island. By reason of t h i s , and her can- tention t h a t the disputed area i s heavily wooded, M r s . Roe claims the character of the land i s not accreted o r alluvion, but r a t h e r resulted from avulsion, Tax r e c e i p t s introduced by P1rs. Rahn show t h a t between 1947 and 1958 she, o r her predecessors i n i n t e r e s t , paid taxes on Lot 4 and Lot 1 and on 30 acres of "accrued land along river". Between 1959 and 1969 the 30 acres of "accrued land along r i v e r " was assessed only t o Lot 1 i n Section 16, but were paid by Mrs. Rahn. Mrs. Roe made no claim t o payment of taxes on the disputed s t r i p p r i o r t o 1970, but i n 1970 and subsequently, both p a r t i e s paid taxes i n con- formity with t h e i r overlapping surveys. Mrs. Rahn pointed out i n her chain of t i t l e mesne convey- ances and quiet t i t l e actions which purported t o e s t a b l i s h t i t l e t o and convey "accrued land" extending the southern boundary of Lot 4 down t o the r i v e r bank, M r s . Roe specifies three assignments of error: 1. The t r i a l court erred i n i t s finding of f a c t No. 1 i n holding t h a t the lands i n question had accreted t o the land of defendant and counterclaimant Jean King Rahn. 2. The t r i a l court erred i n i t s finding of f a c t No. 2 holding t h a t the p l a i n t i f f Gertrude M e Roe had no claim t o the land i n dispute, 3 . The court erred i n dismissing p l a i n t i f f Gertrude M. ~ o e ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l . Assignment of e r r o r No. I, The record shows the disputed s t r i p i s not physically contiguous t o the property owned by Mrs. Roe, but i s separated from i t by the high water channel of the r i v e r . The disputed s t r i p i s physically contiguous t o property claimed by M r s . Rahn by reason of accretion. For purposes of l e g a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of r i p a r i a n landowners, the Yellowstone River a t t h i s point is considered t o be a navigable waterway. Section 67-712, R.C.M, 1947, provi-des: 11 Boundaries by water. Except where t h e grant under which the land i s held indicates a d i f f e r e n t i n t e n t , the owner of the land, when it borders on a navigable lake o r stream, takes t o the edge of the lake o r stream a t low-water mzrk; when it borders upon any other water, the owner takes t o the middle of the lake o r stream. 11 Section 67-302, R,C.M. 1947, provides t h a t the s t a t e of Montana is the owner of the land underlying navigable waterways, and i n the event of an avulsive change i n the course of the navigable waterway the s t a t e i.s e n t i t l e d t o the land previously occupied by the watercourse, United S t a t e s v. Eldredge, 33 F.Supp. 337, The 1878 W.W. deLacy government survey indicates the island owned by Mrs. Roe was. a t some time, contiguous t o the south bank of the Yellowstone River. The i s s u e of possible s t a t e land claims under an abandoned riverbed theory was not sufficiently developed by the l i t i g a n t s t o permit further comment i n t h i s opinion on t h a t point. Concerning the l e g a l presumptions of "accretion" versus t I avulsion", 65 C.J.S. Navigable Waters $ 86(c), s t a t e s i n pertinent part : "1n the event of a dispute a s t o whether land changes resulted from avulsion o r otherwise, the presumption i s t h a t i t resulted from accretion o r erosion; and the land concededly lying between r i p a r i a n l o t s , a s surveyed by the government, and the present bank of a stream w i l l be presumed t o be the r e s u l t of accretion and not of avulsion, One claiming a change was by avulsion r a t h e r than by accretion has the burden of proving the avulsion. I I See: Dartmouth College v. Rose, 257 Iowa 533, 133 N.W.2d 687; Joplin v. Kitchens, 87 Ida, 530, 394 P.2d 313. However, t h i s i s not t o say t h a t there i s no burden of proof as concerns claimed accretions. 65 C.J.S. Navigable Waters 5 85(b) s t a t e s : 11 The party claiming accretions must prove h i s r i g h t thereto by a preponderance of the evidence." See: McCafferty v, Young, 144 Mont. 385, 397 P,2d 96. It appears t h a t Mrs. Rahn merely r e l i e d on the presumption favoring accretion over avulsion and Mrs. ~ o e ' s f a i l u r e t o a f f i r - matively prove avulsion. Mrs. Rahn did not carry the burden of proving her r i g h t t o the claimed accretions o r even the f a c t of accretion, Concerning the meander l i n e s appearing i n the e a r l y govern- ment surveys of the area, t h i s Court stated a general r u l e i n Faucett v. Dewey Lumber Co., 82 Mont. 250, 257, 266 P5 646: he general r u l e adopted by s t a t e and federal courts i s t h a t meander l i n e s run i n surveying f r a c t i o n a l portions of public lands bordering upon navigable bodies of water a r e not run a s boundaries of the t r a c t , but f o r the purpose of defining the s i n u o s i t i e s of the banks of the lake o r r i v e r , i n order t o ascertain the exact quantity of the upland t o be charged f o r , The t i t l e of the grantee i s not limited t o such meander lines; the waters themselves and not the meander l i n e s c o n s t i t u t e the r e a l boundary. [Citing cases 1, I I Bowever, Eldredge demonstrates an exception t o t h i s general r u l e by the application of section 67-1518, R.C.M. 1947: I I A grant is t o be interpreted i n favor of the grantee, except t h a t a reservation i n any grant, and every grant by a public o f f i c e r o r body, a s such, t o a private party is t o be interpreted in favor of the grantor. ?I Here, it was never shown that the southern boundary of Lot 4 was established by reference t o a meander l i n e appearing on a survey. Rather it appears t h a t the southern boundary of Lot 4 was established along a slough o r d i t c h running southwesterly be- tween t h e e a s t and west boundaries of Lot 4 ; joining t h e e a s t boundary a t a point 1850 f e e t south of the north boundary of Section 15, and joining the west boundary a t a point 2305 f e e t south of the north boundary of Section 15, From a survey prepared f o r Mrs, Rahn i n 1969, it appears the e a s t boundary of Lot 4 , including I I accreted" land t o which she claims ownership, i s 2501,9 f e e t i n length, extending from the r i v e r bank t o the north boundary of Section 15. This i s an extension of 651.9 f e e t from the o r i g i n a l p l a t of Lot 4. Tax receipts introduced by Mrs, Rahn show t h a t between 1947 and 1958 taxes were paid by her o r her predecessors on 30 acres of "accrued land along river" assessed j o i n t l y t o adjacent Lots 1 and 4. Then, between 1959 and 1969 the assessment f o r 30 acres of "accrued land" was attached e n t i r e l y t o Lot 1 i n Section 16, excluding Lot 4 i n Section 15. The l i t i g a n t s a r e i n dispute a s t o the reason for t h i s change i n assessment. Mrs. Rahn contends her undisputed ownership i s i n Sections 15 and 16; t h a t the r i v e r frontage i n Section 15 i s 1320 f e e t and t h a t the r i v e r frontage i n Section 16 i s 200 f e e t ; t h e disputed s t r i p i s i n Section 15. She further contends the change i n assessment of the "accrued" ].and between 1959 and 1969 was due t o a transcription e r r o r be- cause it was physically impossible t o have 30 acres of "accrued" land in Section 16, M r s . Roe disagrees with Mrs. R.ahnls contention. However, she does not f u l l y explain on what basis. She does claim t h a t under the original grant i n Mrs. ~ a h n ' s chain of t i t l e the south boundary was placed along a ditch o r slough lying considerably north of the river bank (involving a much larger land area than the s t r i p which i s a c t u a l l y i n dispute), Mrs. Roe contends t h a t subsequent intervening quiet t i t l e actions and property transfers by warranty deed, appearing i n the Rahn chain of t i t l e , would be ineffectual i n extending the area of the o r i g i n a l Lot 4 down t o the r i v e r bank, even though they purported t o do so. Under t h i s contention, t i t l e t o the disputed s t r i p , and indeed a considerably l a r g e r s t r i p , is not i n e i t h e r of the l i t i g a n t s , but r a t h e r i n e i t h e r the federal o r s t a t e government. For example, if it were shown t h a t the land configuration is now substantially the same a s when o r i g i n a l l y platted, and no accretion o r avulsion took place, the federal government could a s s e r t claim t o the section of r i v e r bank ].and not conveyed i n t h e o r i g i n a l grant. Or, i.f avulsion was proved and it was shown the land i n question was previously the Yellowstone River bed, the s t a t e could a s s e r t claim t o the land, The r u l e appears well s e t t l e d t h a t possession, occupancy o r use, whether adverse o r f o r whatever length of t i m e , cannot secure t i t l e a s against the government, Bode v. Rollwitz, 60 Mont. 481, 199 P. 688; lJnited States v, Eldredge, supra. The issues raised by Mrs. Roe c r e a t e a dilemna which is not f u l l y o r s a t i s f a c t o r i l y answered by M r s . Rahn. Mrs. Rahn's contentions concerning payment af taxes on 30 acres of "accrued" land and the related claimed transcription mistake; the mesne conveyances by warranty deed purporting t o convey the t r a c t of I I accrued" land between her l o t s and the r i v e r ; and the intervening quiet t i t l e actions purporting t o confirm t i t l e t o the t r a c t be- tween her l o t s and the r i v e r beg t h e r e a l issues: (1) What was the southern boundary of Lots 1 and 4 under the o r i g i n a l land grant by the United States Government? (2) Regardless of the "common designation" of the land between Lots 1 and 4 and the r i v e r , what is i t s a c t u a l h i s t o r y and geological character? In summary, it appears both l i t i g a n t s point t o weaknesses i n t h e i r adversary's t i t l e claim, but f a i l t o establish the strength ~f t h e i r own, Consequently, we find some merit i n Mrs, ~ o e ' s f i r s t assignment of e r r o r . W e see nothing i n the record which conclu- sively proves t h a t Mrs. Rahn has t i t l e t o a l l the "commonly desig- nated accreted land" adjoining her l o t s and bordering on the r i v e r , o r even t h a t the land was, i n f a c t : accreted. Assignment of e r r o r No, 2, W e find the t r i a l court was correct i n holding t h a t Mrs. Roe had proven no claim t o the disputed s t r i p , She had not s a t i s f i e d the requirements of sections 93-2506 through 93-2513, R,C.PI, 1947; nor did she demonstrate v a l i d color of t i t l e , She merely, as we have hereinabove discussed, demon- s t r a t e d weakness i n the claim of M r s . Rahn. Assignment of e r r o r No. 3 . W e hold t h a t a motion f o r a new t r i a l i s meritorious where, a s here, a determination of f a c t was made which was erroneous o r not s u f f i c i e n t l y supported by the evidence before the court. Sections 93-5601 through 93-5604, R.C.M. 1947, The decision and order of the t r i a l court a r e reversed. The cause i s remanded f o r further proceedings not inconsistent >iith t h i s opinion. /i Associate J u s t i c e 4 / p i e f Justice A s oci.ate Justices. , 3 / /