Title: JOHNSON v JARRETT

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12804 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1976 H A R O L D J. JOHNSON and MAVIS M. JOHNSON, P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, -vs - T H O M A S JARRETT and SIGRID JARRETT, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of t h e Sixth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellants : Yardley and Yardley , Livings ton, Montana Jack Yardley argued, Livingston, Montana Holter and Heath, Bozeman, Montana Robert M. Holter argued, Bozernan, Montana For Respondents : Jones, Olson, and Chris tensen, B i l l i n g s , Montana Gerald D. Christensen argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana William V. Moore appeared, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: February, 2, 1976 Decided : ii$dak 2 $ f':m Filed :'\"#A@ % C, J$jJs M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This appeal i s from a judgment i n a q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n entered i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Park County, determining t h e boundary between t h e p a r t i e s ' property. P l a i n t i f f s Johnson f i l e d an a c t i o n t o q u i e t t i t l e t o about 500 acres of land located i n Section 15, Township 1 South, Range 12 East, M.P.M., Park County, Montana. This appeal arises over a controversy as t o t h e boundary l i n e separating t h e property of p l a i n t i f f s and defendants i n Lot 5 of Section 15. I n 1899, a l l of Lot 5, Section 15, w a s owned by Timothy Murray. O n J u l y 8 , 1899, he conveyed by deed t o Susan A. Mendenhall: "All t h a t p o r t i o n of Lot Five (5) which i s east of t h e wagon road leading from t h e Springdale S t a t i o n on t h e Northern P a c i f i c Railroad n o r t h t o Hunters Hot Springs and north of t h e t r a c k of s a i d r a i l r o a d a s now located." Defendants Jarrett a r e t h e successors i n i n t e r e s t t o Susan A. Men- denhall, and t h e lands described i n t h e 1899 deed. O n August 11, 1903, Timothy Murray deeded t o James A . Murray : "All t h a t p o r t i o n of Lot Five (5) l y i n g w e s t of t h e wagon road from r a i l r o a d t o Hunters Hot Springs. " P l a i n t i f f s Johnson a r e successors i n i n t e r e s t t o James A. Murray and t h e lands described i n t h e 1903 deed. The i s s u e i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w a s t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e wagon road described i n both deeds a s forming t h e boundary t o t h e r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s ' p o r t i o n of Lot 5. P l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e t h e "wagon road" i s t h a t c e r t a i n wagon road running from Springdale S t a t i o n t o Hunters Hot Springs a s shown on a United S t a t e s Government Survey of J u l y , 1886. This road r a n i n a roughly e a s t - w e s t d i r e c t i o n through Lot 5 ending a t a f e r r y across t h e Yellowstone River. Defendants a l l e g e t h e "wagon road" i s t h e p r e s e n t county road running from t h e p r e s e n t Springdale t o Hunters Hot Springs. (Mendenhall). This road runs north and south through Lot 5 t o a bridge a c r o s s t h e Yellowstone River. A t t h e present t h e r e i s no physical evidence of t h e wagon road described i n t h e 1886 survey. Defendants introduced evidence of t h e move of t h e Spring- d a l e S t a t i o n approximately two m i l e s e a s t on t h e Great Northern Line a t some t i m e between t h e year 1886 and 1898, with t h e p r e s e n t county road being b u i l t about t h e same t i m e . Defendants a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h e p r e s e n t county road is bounded on t h e e a s t by fences which have e x i s t e d i n t h e i r p r e s e n t l o c a t i o n f o r a t least 35 years. P l a i n t i f f s and defendants agree t h a t p l a i n t i f f s have never used any of Lot 5 east of t h e p r e s e n t county road, nor d i d defend- a n t s use any of t h e land w e s t of t h e road. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t s i t t i n g without a jury, found i n favor of p l a i n t i f f s ' claim and entered judgment accordingly. A l l post-judgment motions of defendants w e r e denied, and they appealed t o t h i s Court. b r i e f A t roughly t h e same t i m e a s defendants f i l e d t h e i r r e p l y / with t h i s Court, one of defendants discovered c e r t a i n o f f i c i a l records of Park County and moved t h i s Court f o r t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of new evidence o r removal t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. Hearing w a s held on t h i s motion January 1 0 , 1975. O n January 13, 1975, t h i s Court, i n a per curiam o r d e r , remanded t h e cause t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t with i n s t r u c t i o n s t o permit de- fendants t o f i l e a motion f o r a new t r i a l upon t h e ground of newly discovered evidence. Rehearing w a s held on March 17, 1975, i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Park County, without a jury. Defendants introduced evi- dence of a county road from Springdale t o Mendenhall i n 1890, t o prove t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e p r e s e n t county road a t i t s present l o c a t i o n and equating it t o t h e wagon road described i n t h e deeds. P l a i n t i f f s challenged t h i s evidence with testimony of a licensed land surveyor and t h e 1900 Park County assess- ment r o l l s f o r Lot 5. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t awarded judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f s and defendants appeal. The i s s u e s presented f o r review by t h i s Court a r e : 1. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n determining t h e 1886 wagon road was t h e same "wagon road" as described i n t h e 1899 and 1903 deeds, thereby f a i l i n g t o determine t h a t defendants own a l l of Lot 5 east of t h e present county road? 2. Did p l a i n t i f f s and t h e i r predecessors i n i n t e r e s t acquiesce i n and accept t h e present county road a s t h e boundary l i n e between t h e respective portions of Lot 5? 3. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n f a i l i n g t o f i n d t h e proper l o c a t i o n of t h e "wagon road" through Lot 5 i n t h e years 1899 and 1903 was a s set f o r t h i n t h e Park County o f f i c i a l records discovered subsequent t o t h e f i r s t judgment and introduced a t t h e second hearing? 4 . Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err when it f a i l e d t o f i n d p l a i n t i f f s knew, p r i o r t o t h e i n i t i a l hearing, of t h e evidence presented by defendants a t t h e second hearing, thus f a i l i n g t o d i s c l o s e t o t h e c o u r t t h e existence of such records; t h a t such f a i l u r e w a s m a t e r i a l , misled t h e c o u r t , was f a l s e and c o n s t i t u t e d a fraud upon t h e c o u r t , and t h a t because of such f a i l u r e , t h e c o u r t and defendants w e r e p u t t o much t r o u b l e and expense? 5. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err when it allowed c e r t a i n c o s t s t o p l a i n t i f f s ? It i s well s e t t l e d i n Montana t h a t t h e findings and judgments of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w i l l not be disturbed i f supported and j u s t i f i e d by t h e evidence. Fautsch v. Fautsch, 166 Mont. 98, 530 P.2d 1172, 32 St.Rep. 70; Richardson v. Howard Motors, I n c . , 163 Mont. 347, 516 P.2d 1153; Harnung v. E s t a t e of Lagerquist, 155 Mont. 412, 473 P.2d 541; Anderson v. Mace, 99 Mont. 421, 45 P.2d 771; Anaconda National Bank v . Johnson, 75 Mont. 401, 244 P. 1 4 1 . The evidence must be viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y . Bos v . Dolajak, Mont . , 534 P.2d 1258, 32 St.Rep. 438; Holenstein v. Andrews, 166 Mont. 60, 530 P.2d 476, 32 St.Rep. 4 1 ; Rogers v . H i l g e r Chevrolet Co., 155 Mont. 1, 465 P.2d 834; Strong v . W i l l i a m s , 154 Mont. 65, 460 P.2d 90; Batchoff v. Craney, 1 1 9 Mont. 157, 172 P.2d 308. Before examining t h e evidence presented a t t h e t r i a l , w e t a k e cognizance of t h e s t a t u t o r y r u l e s f o r c o n s t r u i n g land d e s c r i p t i o n s . Defendants r e f e r u s t o s e c t i o n 93-2201-4, R.C.M. 1947, which s t a t e s , i n t e r a l i a : "The following a r e t h e r u l e s f o r c o n s t r u i n g t h e d e s c r i p t i v e p a r t of a conveyance of real p r o p e r t y , when t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s d o u b t f u l and t h e r e a r e no o t h e r s u f f i c i e n t circumstances t o determine it: "2. When permanent and v i s i b l e .or a s c e r t a i n e d boundaries o r monuments a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e measurement, e i t h e r o f l i n e s , a n g l e s , o r s u r f a c e s , t h e boundaries o r monuments a r e para- mount. " I n Buckley v . L a i r d , 158 Mont. 483, 491, 493 P.2d 1070, t h i s Court quoted t h i s language from 12 Am J u r 2d, Boundaries, " ' I n surveying a t r a c t of land according t o a former p l a t o r survey, t h e s u r v e y o r ' s o n l y d u t y i s t o r e l o c a t e , upon t h e b e s t evidence o b t a i n a b l e , t h e c o u r s e s and l i n e s a t t h e s a m e p l a c e where o r i g i n a l l y l o c a t e d by t h e f i r s t surveyor on t h e ground. I n making t h e resurvey, he has t h e r i g h t t o u s e t h e f i e l d n o t e s of t h e o r i g i n a l survey. The o b j e c t of a resurvey is t o f u r n i s h proof o f t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e l o s t l i n e s o r monuments, n o t t o d i s p u t e t h e c o r r e c t n e s s of o r t o c o n t r o l t h e o r i g i n a l survey. ' " This is what t h e surveyor i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e was asked t o do and which he d i d . H e surveyed t h e o l d wagon road from Springdale S t a t i o n t o Hunters Hot Springs, using t h e f i e l d n o t e s and survey map of t h e 1886 United S t a t e s Government Survey. H e a l s o certi- f i e d no o t h e r road, whether o r not designated a s a wagon road, crossed Lot 5 a t t h e t i m e of t h e 1886 survey. Defendants a l l e g e t h e surveyor ignored t h e c l e a r , e x i s t - i n g monuments, i.e. t h e p r e s e n t county road, when surveying f o r t h e wagon road designated i n t h e 1899 and 1903 deeds. W e d i s a g r e e , t h e surveyor was asked t o f i n d t h e wagon road, and found t h e o n l y wagon road s o designated c r o s s i n g Lot 5 from 1886 t o t h e p r e s e n t day. While it i s t r u e t h e 1886 wagon road c r o s s e s Lot 5 i n a g e n e r a l l y east-west d i r e c t i o n and t h e p o r t i o n s of Lot 5 p l a i n t i f f s wish designated a s e a s t and w e s t of t h e wagon road a r e n o t t r u e e a s t o r w e s t , o t h e r evidence presented a t t h e two hearings tend t o confirm t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f s . The 1900 Park County assessment r e c o r d s f o r Lot 5 i n d i - c a t e 27.36 a c r e s w e s t of t h e wagon road and 29.00 a c r e s e a s t of t h e road. Contemporary Park County assessment r e c o r d s i n d i c a t e p l a i n t i f f s own 24.50 a c r e s i n Lot 5, b u t t h e record shows o n l y 3.4 acres of Lot 5 l i e s w e s t of t h e p r e s e n t county road. Unless w e assume t h e county r e c o r d s have been i n c o r r e c t f o r a t l e a s t 75 y e a r s , t h e s e r e c o r d s s e r v e a s evidence supporting t h e c o r r e c t - n e s s of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment; e s p e c i a l l y with testimony i n t h e record t h a t t h e acreage contained i n t h e p o r t i o n s as claimed by p l a i n t i f f s would approximate t h e assessment records. The use of t h e t e r m "wagon road" i n t h e deeds t e n d s t o support t h e s e l e c t i o n of t h e wagon road described i n t h e 1886 survey a s t h e proper boundary between t h e p a r t i e s ' i n t e r e s t s i n Lot 5. Of course a l l roads w e r e wagon roads i n 1899 and 1903, b u t n o t a l l roads w e r e s o designated. The record i n d i c a t e s county roads were so named i n a l l p l a t s , surveys, and road books o f f e r e d i n t o evidence. I f t h e s c r i v e n e r intended t h e road designated i n t h e deeds t o be t h e p r e s e n t county road, o r a dedicated county road a t roughly t h e p r e s e n t r o a d ' s l o c a t i o n , he would have s a i d county road i n t h e deeds. Upon examining t h e record, we f i n d t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence, when viewed i n a l i g h t most favorable t o t h e p r e v a i l - ing p a r t y , supports t h e f i n d i n g s , conclusions, and judgments of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . W e next consider t h e i s s u e of acquiescense on t h e p a r t of p l a i n t i f f s t o t h e p r e s e n t county road serving a s t h e boundary between t h e e a s t and w e s t p o r t i o n s of Lot 5. What is "acquiescence"? A h e l p f u l d e f i n i t i o n is found i n Pence v. Langdon, 99 U.S. 578, 25 L.Ed. 420, 421: "'Acquiescense and waiver a r e always questions of f a c t . There can be n e i t h e r without knowledge. * * * One cannot waive or acquiesce i n a wrong while ignorant t h a t it has been committed. * * * There must be knowledge of f a c t s which w i l l enable t h e p a r t y t o take e f f e c t u a l a c t i o n . Nothing s h o r t of t h i s w i l l do. When f u l l y advised, he must decide and a c t with reasonable d i s p a t c h . ' " This remains t h e law of acquiescence, a s indicated i n 1 2 Am J u r 2d Boundaries, S85: "With regard t o t h e establishment of a common boundary l i n e , acquiescence means a consent t o t h e conditions and involves knowledge of them * * * . * I See a l s o : Houplin v. Stoen, 72 Wash.2d 131, 431 P.2d 998. The r u l e s l a i d down i n Hoar v. Hennessy, 29 Mont. 253, 74 P. 452; Borgeson v. Tubb, 54 Mont. 557, 172 P. 326; T i l l i n g e r v. F r i s b i e , 132 Mont. 583, 318 P.2d 1079; a r e s u f f i c i e n t foundation f o r t h e use of t h e Pence d e f i n i t i o n i n Montana. I n applying t h e Pence d e f i n i t i o n of "acquiescence" t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , w e f i n d p l a i n t i f f s d i d not acquiesce t o t h e p r e s e n t county road serving as t h e boundary between t h e e a s t and west p o r t i o n s of Lot 5. The records show p l a i n t i f f s and defendants accepted t h e present county road a s t h e boundary between t h e i r lands f o r over 30 years but t h i s was not acquiescence on the p a r t of p l a i n t i f f s , a s they were ignorant of t h e f a c t s indicating the present county road is not t h e t r u e boundary. When p l a i n t i f f s became " f u l l y advised" of t h e f a c t s , they acted "with reasonable dispatch" t o e s t a b l i s h the t r u e boundaries. Defendants a l l e g e t h e d i s t r i c t court erred i n not find- ing the present county road t o be the t r u e boundary, based on t h e additional evidence presented a t t h e rehearing. The record indicates t h e evidence presented a t the rehearing did not d i s - prove the location of t h e 1886 wagon road a s the t r u e boundary. The evidence presented a t the rehearing consisted of an 1890 road book and a viewer report of a "County Road from Springdale t o Mendenhall''. N o evidence of t h e dedication of t h i s road was introduced. In f a c t , t h e record shows, t h i s road's location was not the exact location of the present county road. The Park County assessment record, discussed heretofore, a l s o does not indicate t h e present county road a s t h e t r u e boundary. The d i s t r i c t court was correct i n concluding the evidence introduced by defendants a t t h e rehearing was not relevant nor material t o t h e existence and location of t h e "wagon road", designated i n the 1899 and 1903 deeds. Defendants a l l e g e p l a i n t i f f s f a i l e d t o disclose t o t h e d i s t r i c t court the existence of the 1890 records, thereby causing a fraud upon the court, a s the f a i l u r e was material and misled t h e court. P l a i n t i f f s admit t o knowledge of the 1890 records p r i o r t o the o r i g i n a l hearing. P l a i n t i f f s t e s t i f i e d the records w e r e not brought t o the a t t e n t i o n of the court, because they did not believe t h e 1890 records relevant t o the location of the "wagon road". The d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h e s e records n o t r e l e v a n t o r m a t e r i a l t o t h e wagon road controversy, t h u s p l a i n t i f f s ' f a i l u r e t o bring them t o t h e c o u r t ' s a t t e n t i o n could not be misleading o r a fraud on t h e c o u r t . Defendants a l l e g e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n allowing c e r t a i n c o s t s t o p l a i n t i f f s . The c o s t s challenged are: (1) t h e f e e s f o r p u b l i c a t i o n of summons; ( 2 ) preparation of maps and surveys; and (3) copies of d e p o s i t i o n s purchased by p l a i n t i f f s f o r t r i a l preparation. Section 93-8618, R.C.M. 1947, provides: "A p a r t y t o whom c o s t s a r e awarded i n an a c t i o n is e n t i t l e d t o include i n h i s b i l l of c o s t s h i s necessary disbursements, a s follows: * * * t h e expenses of taking depositions; t h e l e g a l f e e s f o r p u b l i c a t i o n when p u b l i c a t i o n is d i r e c t e d * * * t h e l e g a l f e e s paid stenographers f o r per diem o r f o r copies * * * t h e reasonable expenses f o r making a map o r maps i f required, and necessary t o be used on t r i a l o r hearing * * *". The p u b l i c a t i o n f e e s a r e allowed by s p e c i f i c s t a t u t o r y provision, thus t h e s e c o s t s were properly charged t o defendants. The c o s t of preparation of maps and surveys a r e allowed where necessary t o explain t h e s i t u a t i o n . Kelly v. C i t y of Butte, 44 Mont. 115, 119 P. 171; Perkins v. Stephens, 131 Mont. 138, 308 P.2d 620. I n t h e i n s t a n t case, t h e maps a s s i s t e d t h e c o u r t i n determining t h e e x i s t e n c e and l o c a t i o n of t h e wagon road. Both p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e maps i n t o evidence. The reasonable c o s t f o r preparation of t h e maps entered i n t o evidence s h a l l be allowed. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o determine whether any p a r t of t h e map and survey c o s t s b i l l e d by p l a i n t i f f s arose from surveys o r maps of p l a i n t i f f s ' property o u t s i d e Lot 5 o r d i d n o t p e r t a i n t o t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e "wagon road". Any such unnecessary expense s h a l l not be allowed a s c o s t s charged t o defendants. The copies of depositions purchased by p l a i n t i f f s f o r t r i a l preparation w e r e s o l e l y f o r p l a i n t i f f s ' b e n e f i t and cannot be charged t o defendants. Davis v. Trobough, 139 Mont. 322, 363 P.2d 727. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t is affirmed, with t h e exception of t h e determination of c o s t s charged t o defendants, which s h a l l be determined by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n accordance with directions nereln. Chief J u s t i c e