Title: NOTT v BOOKE

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

NO. 80-406 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 LYLE NOTT AND ODEAL NOTT , Plaintiffs and Respondents, GLEN BOOKE and VICKY BOOKE, husband and wife, and JACK D. HEIDEMA, JOHN A . HEIDEMA, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Carbon. Honorable William J. Speare, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Swandal, Douglass & Swandal, Livingston, Montana Berger, Sinclair and Nelson, Billings, Montana For Respondents: Holmstrom, Dunaway and West, Billings, Montana Submitted on briefs: July 2, 1981 Decided: September 11, 1981 M r . J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Lyle and Odeal Nott, p l a i n t i f f s and respondents, brought t h i s a c t i o n t o q u i e t t i t l e t o c e r t a i n property i n Carbon County, Montana. A summary judgment was granted a g a i n s t t h e Notts i n favor of t h e defendants and a p p e l l a n t s , Glen Booke, Vicky Booke, John A. Heidema and Jack D. Heidema. I n Nott v. Booke (1979), Mont. , 598 P.2d 1137, 36 St.Rep. 1542, t h i s Court reversed t h a t judgment and remanded t h e c a s e t o D i s t r i c t Court f o r a f u l l hearing. Pursuant t o t h a t decision, t h e D i s t r i c t Court s i t t i n g with a jury returned a v e r d i c t i n favor of t h e Notts. From t h a t judgment the Heidemas appealed. Appellants r a i s e t h r e e issues: 1. Does i n s t r u c t i o n no. 8 warrant a new t r i a l because it i n c o r r e c t l y s t a t e s t h e law and prejudices defendants' r i g h t s ? I n s t r u c t i o n no. 8 provided: "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t i f you f i n d t h a t an agreement e x i s t e d between Lyle Nott and t h e defendants' predecessors i n i n t e r e s t , John and Genevieve Shupak, t h a t the disputed s t r i p of land l a y with an agreed upon o r f i x e d boundary, o r t h a t an agreement e x i s t e d between t h e Notts and Shupaks, t h a t extended t h e boundary l i n e between t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s t o include t h e disputed p o r t i o n of land up t o t h e e x i s t i n g fence l i n e , then you must f i n d f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f . " 2. Does t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o g i v e defendants' proposed i n s t r u c t i o n no. 5 prejudice t h e defendants' r i g h t s because it i s a c o r r e c t statement of t h e law and was needed t o balance the o t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s ? Defendants' proposed i n s t r u c t i o n no. 5 s t a t e d : "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 i s supposed l i n e , b u t must conform t o t h e t r u e l i n e when a s c e r t a i n e d . " 3. Can p l a i n t i f f s recover a l l c o s t s of a survey which covered t h e i r e n t i r e property r a t h e r than merely t h e disputed area? The d i s p u t e involves t h e s t r i p of land located between Notts' and Booke-Heidemas' property. They a r e a d j a c e n t landowners i n Carbon County, Montana, t h e i r land adjoining a t t h e Notts' southern and Booke-Heidemas' northern boundaries. The Notts' property i s described according t o t h e i r deed a s : "The North Half of t h e Southwest Q u a r t e r (N1/2 SW1/4) , t h e Southwest Q u a r t e r of t h e Southwest Q u a r t e r (SW1/4 SW1/4), Lot 9 and t h e North 19 f e e t of Lots 10 and 11, a l l located i n Section Four, Township Six South, Range 23 East, M.P.M." The Bookes purchased t h e i r land i n 1976 from t h e Heidemas. The land was o r i g i n a l l y owned by John and Genevieve Shupak. The l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e property i s described a s : "Tract A of C e r t i f i c a t e of Survey No. 885, s i t u a t e d i n Lots 10 and 11, Section 4 and Lot 2 , Section 9, Township 6 South, Range 23 E a s t , M.P.M." The a r e a i n d i s p u t e i s approximately 1950 f e e t i n length, 68 f e e t i n width on t h e e a s t end, 38 f e e t i n width on t h e west end, and s l i g h t l y over two a c r e s i n t o t a l a r e a . It i s a l s o enclosed by a boundary l i n e fence which was constructed by Notts i n 1946. The Notts claim t i t l e t o t h e s t r i p of land under a deed executed i n 1946 t o Lyle B. Nott and h i s then spouse, Rosia Nott, from the Booke-Heidemas' predecessor i n i n t e r e s t , John and Genevieve Shupak. I n 1946, t h e Notts employed William Burke t o conduct a survey of t h e boundary l i n e between t h e i r property and t h e Shupak's, whereupon a fence was constructed by t h e Notts along t h e l i n e a s l a i d o u t by Burke. A f t e r the construction of t h e fence, however, t h e Shupaks disagreed a s t o t h e c o r r e c t placement of t h e fence and boundary l i n e . This, i n t u r n , l e d t o t h e land being resurveyed by Burke, who discovered an e r r o r i n h i s c a l c u l a t i o n s and determined t h e proper boundary l i n e t o be 19 f e e t north of t h e fence. To s e t t l e t h e d i s p u t e , t h e Shupaks executed a deed f o r good consideration t o t h e Notts conveying t h e north 19 f e e t of Lots 1 0 and 11. The p a r t i e s t h e r e a f t e r occupied t h e i r lands i n accordance with t h e boundary fence. During t h i s time, t h e Notts c u l t i v a t e d t h e land, constructed fences and c o r r a l s f o r l i v e s t o c k and b u i l t a concrete i r r i g a t i o n flume next t o t h e fence and upon t h e land which i s t h e s u b j e c t of t h i s d i s p u t e . Notts w e r e a l s o assessed and have paid taxes upon t h e i r land i n accordance with t h e d e s c r i p t i o n on t h e deed s i n c e 1946. Bookes purchased t h e i r land from Heidemas i n 1976. To comply with the provisions of the Subdivision and P l a t t i n g Act, a c e r t i f i c a t e of survey was made a f t e r t h e purchase. This survey, which was conducted i n 1977, c r e a t e d a f u r t h e r discrepancy between t h e boundary fence and Burke's second survey, giving rise t o t h e p r e s e n t d i s p u t e . Notts argue t h a t they have acquired t i t l e by s a t i s f y i n g a l l t h e elements of adverse possession, including t h e require- ment t o pay a l l taxes on t h e land a s set o u t i n s e c t i o n 70- 19-411, MCA, which provides: "OCCUPANCY AND P A Y M E N T OF T A X E S NECESSARY TO P R O V E ADVERSE POSSESSION. I n no case s h a l l adverse possessions be considered e s t a b l i s h e d under t h i s code unless it be shown t h a t t h e land has been occupied and claimed f o r a period of 5 years continuously and t h e p a r t y o r persons, t h e i r predecessors,and g r a n t o r s have during such period paid a l l of t h e taxes, s t a t e , county, o r municipal, which have been l e g a l l y levied and assessed upon s a i d land. " I n t h i s Court's previous opinion, a t 598 P.2d 1139, w e s t a t e d : ". . . where a boundary l i n e has been agreed upon o r fixed because of t h e uncertainty of t h e p a r t i e s a s t o t h e t r u e boundary and t h e deed d e s c r i p t i o n does n o t include t h e disputed land, t h e payment of taxes according t o t h e deed d e s c r i p t i o n does con- s t i t u t e a payment upon such land f o r t h e purpose of s a t i s f y i n g t h e s t a t u t e . Townsend v. Kouk01, 148 Mont. a t 8; 416 P.2d a t 536." Further, t h e opinion contained t h e following comments r e l a t i v e t o t h e f a c t u a l i s s u e t o be decided: "The question of f a c t which i s most c r u c i a l t o a determination of t h e i s s u e facing t h i s Court, then, i s whether an agreement e x i s t e d between a p p e l l a n t s and respondents, o r t h e i r predecessors i n i n t e r e s t , t h a t t h e disputed s t r i p of land l a y within an agreed upon o r fixed boundary." This i s s u e was submitted t o t h e jury, and i n accordance with i t s findings, t h e D i s t r i c t Court entered a decree q u i e t i n g t i t l e t o t h e disputed s t r i p t o t h e Notts. Bookes and Heidemas f i l e d motions contesting t h e survey expenses, which motions were denied. Heidemas now appeal t h e e n t i r e j udgmen t . I n s t r u c t i o n no. 8 was objected t o a t t r i a l on t h e b a s i s t h a t it was n o t a c o r r e c t statement of t h e law. According t o Rule 51, M.R.Civ.P., "INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY-OBJECTION.. . . Objections made s h a l l s p e c i f y and s t a t e t h e p a r t i c u l a r grounds on which the i n s t r u c t i o n i s objected t o and it s h a l l n o t be s u f f i c i e n t i n s t a t i n g the ground of such o b j e c t i o n t o s t a t e generally t h e i n s t r u c t i o n does n o t s t a t e t h e law o r i s a g a i n s t t h e law, b u t such ground of objection s h a l l specify p a r t i c u l a r l y wherein t h e i n s t r u c t i o n i s i n s u f f i c i e n t o r does n o t s t a t e t h e law, o r what p a r t i c u l a r c l a u s e t h e r e i n i s objected t o I1 . . . Objection t o an i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t it i s an i n c o r r e c t statement of t h e law without specifying t h e d e f e c t has long been considered an i n s u f f i c i e n t objection and w e w i l l n o t review t h e a l l e g e d e r r o r occasioned by t h e giving of an a l l e g e d l y i n c o r r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n . Brunnabend v. Tibbles (1926) , 76 Mont. 288 a t 303, 246 P. 536 a t 540. That r u l e a p p l i e s here. Appellants a l s o argue t h a t they w e r e prejudiced by t h e c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o g i v e t h e i r offered i n s t r u c t i o n no. 5, t h e source of which i s Myrick v. P e e t (1919), 56 Mont. 13 a t 26, 180 P. 574 a t 579. The statement from t h a t case, however, presupposes t h a t no v a l i d agreement a s t o t h e boundary l i n e has been made. That i s p r e c i s e l y t h e question p u t before t h e jury by i n s t r u c t i o n no. 8 and ( i n t h e words of t h i s C o u r t ) , " t h e question of f a c t which i s most c r u c i a l t o a determination of t h e i s s u e facing t h i s Court . . . " Nott v. Booke, supra, a t 1/10 n t . , 598 P.2d 1139, 36 St.Rep. 1545. The jury was f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t e d by i n s t r u c t i o n no. 9 t h a t " i n order t o e s t a b l i s h an agreed boundary l i n e , the evidence must show more than mere acquiescence . . . I 1 . Therefore, w e conclude t h a t t h e jury was f u l l y and c o r r e c t l y i n s t r u c t e d as t o t h e law, t h a t t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e i r v e r d i c t , and t h a t no prejudice t o t h e defendants r e s u l t e d . On t h e i s s u e of c o s t s , a p p e l l a n t s c i t e Johnson v. J a r r e t t (1976), 169 Mont. 408, 548 P.2d 1 4 4 , wherein we d i r e c t e d D i s t r i c t Court 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 n o t be allowed a s c o s t s charged t o defendant." 169 Mont. a t 417, 548 P.2d 149. The survey i n t h e case a t bar covered t h e Notts' e n t i r e property. Any p a r t t h a t d i d not go t o e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e disputed boundary l i n e may have been unnecessary, and t h e c o s t of such excess, i f any, should n o t be charged t o t h e defendants. Accordingly, t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed, with t h e exception of t h e determination of survey c o s t s charged t o defendants, which s h a l l be redetermined on remand t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n accordance with t h e d i r e c t i o n s herein. Costs t o respondent. J J u s t i c e W e Concur: Chief J u s t i c e .............................. J u s t i c e s