Title: BURLINGAME v MARJERRISON
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-214
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: June 30, 1983

No. 82-214 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1983 CLAUDE I. BURLINGAME .and CAROL T. BURLINGAME, Plaintiffs and Appellants, FRED B. MARJERRISON and JEANNINE 0 . !.WRJERRISON, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Sanders, The Honorable Douglas G. Harkin, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Claude I. Burlingame, pro se, Thompson Falls, Montana For Respondents: Morales, Volinkaty & Harr; Richard Volinkaty, Missoula, Montana Submitted on Briefs: February 3, 1983 Decided: June 30, 1983 ~iled: JUN 3 0 1983 Clerk Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Baswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. Claude and C a r o l Burlingame f i l e d a q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e ownership, c o n t r o l and use r i g h t s of a p a r c e l of l a n d l o c a t e d i n Sanders County, Montana. The D i s t r i c t Court s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y decreed t h a t t i t l e t o t h e p r o p e r t y was v e s t e d i n Burlingames b u t t h a t M a r j e r r i s o n s had a c q u i r e d p r e s c r i p t i v e easements f o r g r a z i n g , a g r i c u l t u r e and timber h a r v e s t i n g . C o s t s were awarded t o M a r j e r r i s o n s . Fol- lowing t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e n i a l of Burlingames' motions t o r e t a x t h e c o s t s and t o amend t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t , con- c l u s i o n s of law and d e c r e e , Burlingames a p p e a l . W e r e v e r s e . On March 24, 1978, Burlingames e n t e r e d a c o n t r a c t f o r deed t o purchase t h e s o u t h e a s t q u a r t e r of t h e n o r t h e a s t q u a r t e r (SE1/4 NE1/4) of S e c t i o n 30, Township 20 North, Range 26 West, M.P.M. M a r j e r r i s o n s hold t i t l e t o t h e n o r t h e a s t q u a r t e r of t h e s o u t h e a s t q u a r t e r (NE1/4 SE1/4) of S e c t i o n 30, Township 20 North, Range 26 West M.P.M. Marjer- r i s o n s ' t i t l e was a c q u i r e d through two d e e d s d a t e d November 3 , 1945, and J a n u a r y 24, 1962. Both t h e Burlingame p a r c e l and t h e M a r j e r r i s o n p a r c e l were o r i g i n a l l y a c q u i r e d by United S t a t e s p a t e n t i n 1906 by Alexander Rhone and were h e l d a s o n e t r a c t u n t i l M a r j e r r i s o n s ' p r e d e c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t d i v i d e d t h e p r o p e r t y . A s u r v e y was conducted on b e h a l f o f Burlingames a s a c o n d i t i o n t o t h e s a l e of t h e p r o p e r t y . I t r e v e a l e d t h a t a f e n c e between t h e two p a r c e l s e n c l o s e d approximately f i v e a c r e s of t h e Burlingame t r a c t on its s o u t h e r n border. For purposes of i l l u s t r a t i o n , t h e f o l l o w i n g rough s k e t c h is p r o v i d e d : SKETCH o f SECTION 30 The d a r k l i n e between A and B r e p r e s e n t s t h e surveyed l i n e , e s t a b l i s h e d by Gene Warren and recognized by B u r l i n - games a s t h e s o u t h boundary o f SE1/4 NE1/4. The d o t t e d l i n e between A 1 and B1 r e p r e s e n t s t h e f e n c e claimed by M a r j e r r i - s o n s a s t h e n o r t h boundary o f t h e NE1/4 SE1/4. Fred M a r j e r r i s o n h a s l i v e d on t h e M a r j e r r i s o n t r a c t s i n c e Christmas day, 1935. M a r j e r r i s o n s b u i l t t h e i r home on t h a t t r a c t and t h e y have used t h e t r a c t , i n c l u d i n g t h e f i v e - a c r e p a r c e l , f o r c a t t l e g r a z i n g , a g r i c u l t u r e and timber h a r v e s t i n g s i n c e 1935. P u b l i c r e c o r d s show t h a t t a x e s on t h e two t r a c t s were c o n s i s t e n t l y p a i d by t h e two p a r t i e s and t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t . A d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a c r e a g e f o r t a x p u r p o s e s h a s been accomplished by a review of p l a t books and is based upon t h e l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n s p r o v i d e d i n d e e d s and c o n t r a c t s . No boundary agreements o r s u r v e y s o t h e r w i s e a f f e c t i n g t h e l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n of e i t h e r p a r c e l have been l o c a t e d . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t , a f t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a l l t h e e v i d e n c e and t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d a t t r i a l , and a f t e r a n i n s p e c t i o n of t h e p r e m i s e s , found t h a t : no agreed boundary change e x i s t e d ; M a r j e r r i s o n s had n o t a c q u i r e d e q u i t a b l e t i t l e t o t h e p r o p e r t y through a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n ; a n d , t h a t t h e s u r v e y was c o r r e c t . It a l s o found, however, t h a t M a r j e r r i s o n s had a c q u i r e d p r e s c r i p t i v e easements on t h e p a r c e l f o r g r a z i n g , a g r i c u l t u r a l , and timber h a r v e s t i n g p u r p o s e s and t h e c o u r t awarded c o s t s t o M a r j e r r i s o n s . Burlingames p r e s e n t t h r e e i s s u e s on a p p e a l : 1. Whether s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e d e c r e e ; 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n denying Bur- lingames' motion t o r e t a x c o s t s ; and, 3. Whether t h e amended b i l l of c o s t s is v a l i d . W e w i l l a d d r e s s o n l y t h e f i r s t i s s u e , which is d i s - p o s i t i v e of t h i s c a s e . T h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t o v e r t u r n t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t o f a D i s t r i c t Court where t h e y a r e s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l , though c o n f l i c t i n g , e v i d e n c e u n l e s s t h e r e is a c l e a r prepon- d e r a n c e of t h e e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t t h e f i n d i n g s . S t a t e e x r e l . t i l l s o n v. Department of N a t u r a l Resources and C o n s e r v a t i o n of S t a t e of Montana, Water Resources Div. ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Mont. , 648 P.2d 766, 772, 39 St.Rep. 1294, 1302. W e view t h e e v i d e n c e 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 . Cameron & J e n k i n s v. Cameron ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 179 Mont. 219, 228, 587 P.2d 939, 944. Here, t h e e v i d e n c e does n o t s u p p o r t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g of p r e s c r i p t i v e easements. An easement is a r i g h t which one p e r s o n h a s t o u s e t h e l a n d of a n o t h e r f o r a s p e c i f i c p u r p o s e o r a s e r v i t u d e imposed a s a burden on l a n d . Park County Rod and Gun Club v. Department of Highways ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 163 Mont. 372, 376-377, 517 P.2d 352, 355. An easement c o n s i s t s of b o t h a dominant tenement, o r l a n d t o which t h e easement is a t t a c h e d , and a s e r v i e n t tenement o r l a n d on which a burden is imposed. S e c t i o n 70-17-103, MCA. A t common law, a n e a s e m e n t was d e f i n e d a s a nonpossessory i n t e r e s t i n l a n d t h a t d i d n o t i n c l u d e t h e r i g h t t o t a k e t h e s o i l o r a s u b s t a n c e of t h e s o i l . William E. Burby, Real P r o p e r t y , S 22 a t 62-64; 25 Arn.Jur.2d Ease- ments and L i c e n s e s , s§ l, 2. A nonpossessory i n t e r e s t i n l a n d t h a t c o n s i s t e d o f a r i g h t t o t a k e t h e s o i l o r s u b s t a n c e of t h e s o i l , such as t h e r i g h t t o t a k e w i l d game o r f i s h , \\ was known as a p r o f i t a p r e n d r e . Burby, Real P r o p e r t y , S 22 a t 62-64; Black v. Elkhorn Min. Co. ( 1 8 9 2 ) , 49 F. 549, a f f ' d 52 F. 859, a f f ' d ( 1 8 9 6 ) , 163 U . S . 445, 16 S.Ct. 1101, 4 1 L.Ed. 221. Other examples of p r o f i t s 2 p r e n d r e i n c l u d e t h e r i g h t t o feed c a t t l e on a n o t h e r ' s l a n d and t h e r i g h t t o t a k e g r a v e l o r s t o n e o r m i n e r a l s from a n o t h e r ' s l a n d . Thompson on Real P r o p e r t y , S 135 a t 474 (1980 r e p l a c e m e n t ) . Both easements and p r o f i t s may be a c q u i r e d by e x p r e s s g r a n t , r e s e r v a t i o n i n a deed of t h e s e r v i e n t l a n d , implied g r a n t , or by p r e s c r i p t i o n . Thompson, s u p r a , S 135 a t 488-489; Burby, s u p r a , S S 26-31 a t 68-83; P r e n t i c e v. McKay ( 1 9 0 9 ) , 38 Mont. 114, 98 P. 1081. T h i s C o u r t h a s l o n g r e c o g n i z e d b o t h s e r v i t u d e s . R. M. Cobban R e a l t y Co. v. Donlan ( 1 9 1 5 ) , 51 Mont. 58, 66, 149 P. 484, 487. See a l s o , Brannon v. Lewis & C l a r k County ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 143 Mont. 200, 204, 387 P.2d 706, 709. Both forms of s e r v i - t u d e s have been c o d i f i e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n s e c t i o n s 70- 17-101 and -102, MCA. The f i r s t of t h e two s e c t i o n s p r o v i d e s : "The f o l l o w i n g l a n d b u r d e n s o r s e r v i t u d e s upon l a n d may b e a t t a c h e d t o o t h e r l a n d a s i n c i d e n t s o r a p p u r t e n a n c e s and a r e t h e n c a l l e d easements: " ( 1 ) t h e r i g h t o f p a s t u r e ; " ( 5 ) t h e r i g h t of t a k i n g w a t e r , wood, m i n e r a l s , and o t h e r t h i n g s . " (Emphasis added. ) S e c t i o n 76-17-102, MCA, a l s o d e f i n e s l a n d b u r d e n s o r s e r v i t u d e s t h a t may be g r a n t e d and h e l d even though n o t a t t a c h e d t o l a n d . I t t o o p r o v i d e s a s s e r v i t u d e s t h e r i g h t of p a s t u r e , t h e r i g h t of t a k i n g water, and t h e r i g h t o f t a k i n g o t h e r t h i n g s . While a s e r v i t u d e may by d e f i n i t i o n be an easement, n o t a l l s e r v i t u d e s are easements s i n c e n o t a l l s e r v i t u d e s a r e a t t a c h e d t o o t h e r l a n d as a p p u r t e n a n c e s . By c o n t r a s t , t h e d o c t r i n e o f a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n r e f e r s t o a c q u i s i t i o n o f a p o s s e s s o r y i n t e r e s t i n l a n d and r e s u l t s i n a c q u i s i t i o n of t i t l e t o t h e p r o p e r t y . Brannon v. Lewis & C l a r k County, s u p r a , 143 Mont. a t 206, 387 P.2d a t 710. The p r o p e r t y must be claimed under c o l o r o f t i t l e o r by p o s s e s - s i o n which is a c t u a l , v i s i b l e , e x c l u s i v e , h o s t i l e and con- t i n u o u s f o r t h e s t a t u t o r y p e r i o d . The p a r t y c l a i m i n g a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n must a l s o have p a i d t h e t a x e s on t h e p r o p e r t y f o r the full statutory period pursuant to section 70-19-411, MCA. Swecker v. Dorn (1979), 181 Mont. 436, 441, 593 P.2d 1055, 1058. Here, the District Court held that Marjerrisons had not acquired title to the parcel through adverse possession since they did not pay property taxes on the disputed parcel as required pursuant to section 70-19-411, MCA. Brannon v. Lewis & Clark County, supra, 143 Mont. at 206, 387 P.2d at 710. It also found no agreed boundary change and no error in the survey. It then concluded that Marjerrisons had acquired prescriptive easements for the purpose of grazing, agriculture and timber harvesting. We disagree. Both prescriptive easements and title by adverse possession are established in a similar manner. Brannon v. Lewis and Clark County, supra. The claimant must show use that is open, notorious, exclusive, adverse, continuous, and uninterrupted for the full statutory period. Blasdel v. Montana Power Co. (1982), Mon t . , 640 P.2d 889, 895, 39 St.Rep. 219, 225; sections 70-19-404, -405, MCA. Here, Marjerrisons needed to demonstrate and did demonstrate each of these elements for a five-year period. Blasdel, 640 P.2d at 895, 39 St.Rep. at 225. An easement, however, is by definition a nonpossessory interest. Here, Marjerrisons held complete possession of the parcel for the statutory period. They did not merely impose a burden upon the Burlingame parcel for the benefit of a dominant tenement. In a case on all fours with this, the Florida Court of Appeals distinguished easements from the right to occupy and e n j o y t h e land i t s e l f . I t h e l d t h a t where, a s h e r e , t h e c l a i m a n t had complete p o s s e s s i o n of t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y , t h e c l a i m amounted t o "a complete t a k i n g i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a c l a i m of easement." P l a t t v. P i e t r a s (Fla.App. 1 9 8 0 ) , 382 So.2d 414, 416. See a l s o , Black v. Elkhorn Min. Co., s u p r a . W e a g r e e . Where a p r e s c r i p t i v e r i g h t t o a s e r v i t u d e h a s t h e e f f e c t of l e a v i n g t h e owner w i t h a n empty f e e t i t l e , t h e s i t u a t i o n is n o t one of p r e s c r i p t i v e r i g h t i n t h e form of a n easement. I t h a s r i p e n e d i n t o a c l a i m f o r a d v e r s e posses- s i o n . A l l of t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n must t h e n be m e t , i n c l u d i n g payment of t a x e s . Brannon v. L e w i s and C l a r k County, s u p r a , 143 Mont. a t 206, 387 P.2d a t 710. Here, M a r j e r r i s o n s ' use and occupancy of t h e l a n d d i d n o t amount t o a c q u i s i t i o n o f a n e a s e m e n t t h a t was m e r e l y a p p u r t e n a n t t o t h e dominant tenement. It must r a t h e r be c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s complete p o s s e s s i o n , dominion and u s e of t h e p a r c e l t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f B u r l i n g a m e s a n d t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t . I t t a k e s on t h e a s p e c t of a fee. M a r j e r r i s o n s f i r s t l i v e d on t h e p r o p e r t y i n 1935. Testimony e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e p l o t was used f o r g a r d e n i n g . Corn was r a i s e d . Cows and h o r s e s were p a s t u r e d and watered t h e r e . A f e n c e i n some form o r a n o t h e r h a s e x i s t e d s i n c e 1 9 3 5 . Dr. Edwin J . B u r k e , a wood s c i e n t i s t a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Montana, examined wood f r a g m e n t s removed from t h e corner f e n c e p o s t a t t h e n o r t h e a s t c o r n e r of M a r j e r r i - s o n s ' p r o p e r t y . H i s e x p e r t testimony e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l corner p o s t of t h e f e n c e was most l i k e l y s e t around 1916. The d i s t r i c t judge v i s i t e d t h e l a n d and p e r s o n a l l y viewed the site at the request of the parties. The use has been open, notorious, exclusive, adverse, continuous and uninterrupted. One cannot gain adverse possession to land unless one pays the taxes on the land throughout the statutory period. Nor can one acquire a prescriptive right to property which in effect usurps the ownership of the fee title without paying the taxes thereon. Marjerrisons failed to do so. They have acquired no interest in the property. Burlingames also challenge some of the costs included in Marjerrisons' memorandum of costs and the amendment of the bill of costs. These issues are moot on reversal since Burlingames now prevail and will not be assessed costs. Reversed and remanded to the District Court for entry of a decree consistent with this opinion. ~LA-Q$64dA,Au&, Chief ~us'fice We concur: