Case Title: CHRISTIE v PAPKE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81-544

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1982-11-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 81-544 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 LAURENCE G. CHRISTIE, et dl., Plaintiffs and Respondents, -vs- CHARLES A. PAPKE, et dl., Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin, The Honorable Joseph B. Gary, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellants: Bolinger and Higgins, Bozemzn, Montana For Respondents: Nash and Nash, Bozeman, Montana Submitted on Briefs: May 20, 1982 Decided: November 9, 1982 Filed: \ 7982 M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendants, Charles A. Papke, e t a l , appeal from a judgment of t h e G a l l a t i n County D i s t r i c t Court q u i e t i n g t i t l e t o c e r t a i n lands i n favor of t h e p l a i n t i f f s , Laurence G. C h r i s t i e and h i s wife. This case involves a boundary d i s p u t e between adjacent landowners. P l a i n t i f f , Laurence G. C h r i s t i e ( C h r i s t i e ) brought t h i s q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n t o determine ownership of a t r i a n g u l a r s t r i p of land lying along t h e boundary between t h e p a r t i e s ' lands. The t r i a l c o u r t , s i t t i n g without a jury, held f o r C h r i s t i e and ordered t h a t C h r i s t i e ' s t i t l e t o t h e disputed s t r i p be quieted. The t r i a l c o u r t a l s o ordered t h e defendants (Papke) t o r e b u i l d a fence which he had t o r n down o r t o pay f o r t h e reconstruction. Papke contends t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n not f i n d i n g t h a t an implied agreed boundary was e s t a b l i s h e d by a fence b u i l t i n 1920, and t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t should a l s o have found t h a t Papke could recover money he spent t o r e p l a c e t h e 1920 fence which C h r i s t i e had destroyed. W e affirm. Both p a r t i e s ' predecessors i n i n t e r e s t received t i t l e t o t h e i r property by p a t e n t from t h e United S t a t e s government. The boundary between t h e p r o p e r t i e s i s described i n both deeds as t h e q u a r t e r s e c t i o n l i n e . I n 1920, a t e n a n t of C h r i s t i e ' s predecessor i n i n t e r e s t b u i l t a fence which served a s a boundary between t h e p r o p e r t i e s u n t i l 1976. I n 1976, C h r i s t i e h i r e d a licensed surveyor. The survey r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e a c t u a l q u a r t e r s e c t i o n l i n e w a s located somewhat south of t h e 1920 fence l i n e . Papke's land lies d i r e c t l y south of C h r i s t i e ' s . This meant t h a t t h e 1920 fence deprived C h r i s t i e of t h e f u l l use of t h e land described i n h i s deed. In 1978, Christie destroyed the 1920 fence and built a fence along the boundary indicated in the 1976 survey. I n 1980, Papke destroyed the new fence and reestablished the 1920 fence. This suit followed. Papke argues that because the 1920 fence served as a boundary for approximately 58 years and because Christie helped to maintain the fence; that at some point the fence became the actual boundary by implied agreement. Although we have recognized the right of adjoining property owners to establish an agreed boundary line (~yrick v . Peet (1919), 56 Mont. 13, 180 P. 574), under own send v. Kuokol the parties are required to prove by clear and con- vincing evidence all elements of an implied agreed boundary. In Townsend, 148 Mont. 1, at 6, 416 P.2d 532, at 535, we stated: "[iln order to establish an agreed boundary line, the evidence must show more than mere acquiescence and occupancy for the time prescribed by the statute of limitations; it must go further and show that there was uncertainty in the location of the line, that there was an agreement among the coterminus owners, express or implied, fixing the line, and that there was an actual designation of the line upon the ground and occupation in accordance therewith." In a memorandum accompanying the findings and conclusions (a most helpful device to an appellate court), the trial court applied Townsend, and stated that "[iln this case the evidence was not clear and convincing that the parties or predecessors in interest had agreed that the fence line would be the dividing line." Although Christie helped to maintain the 1920 fence, his long acquiescence in the existence of the 1920 fence did not create an implied agreement establishing a boundary. Papke cites authority from other jurisdictions holding that long acquiescence is enough. However, our law i s t o t h e contrary, and w e choose t o follow it. (Townsend v. Kuokol, supra. ) The r u l e is t h a t "where . . . two adjoining p r o p r i e t o r s a r e divided by a fence which they suppose t o be t h e t r u e l i n e , they a r e n o t bound by t h e supposed l i n e , but must conform t o t h e t r u e l i n e when it is ascertained." Myrick i n v. Peet, supra; reaffirmec$?'Schmuclc v. Beck (1925), 72 Mont. 6 0 6 , 234 P. 477; and Reel v. Walter (1957), 131 Mont. 3 3 2 , 309 P.2d 1027. The t r i a l c o u r t found t h e most c r e d i b l e evidence of t h e t r u e boundary t o be t h e 1976 survey. The t r i a l c o u r t had before it t h e testimony of t h e surveyor and t h e p l a t prepared by him. The evidence supports t h e f i n d i n g t h a t t h e survey had been properly made and t h e l i n e properly located. Our holding on t h e implied boundary i s s u e means t h a t Papke would have no r i g h t t o recover on h i s counterclaim asking f o r fence construction expenses incurred when he r e b u i l t t h e 1920 fence which C h r i s t i e had t o r n down i n 1978. I n r u l i n g f o r p l a i n t i f f C h r i s t i e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ordered t h a t Papke, i n l i e u of damages, must r e e s t a b l i s h t h e fence along t h e t r u e boundary l i n e surveyed by Ronald L. Burgess i n 1976. The t r i a l c o u r t gave Papke 1 1/2 months a f t e r judgment t o comply with its order t o r e c o n s t r u c t t h e fence. That judgment was stayed pending t h i s appeal. I n affirming w e remand t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o determine a proper t i m e f o r Papke t o b u i l d t h e fence o r t o pay damages i n l i e u of construction. Affirmed and remanded. We Concur: , / / - , I / / Justices t