Opinion ID: 1908063
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: boundary determinations

Text: [¶ 7] The court's determination of property boundaries as ascertained from a deed is a question of law. Baptist Youth Camp v. Robinson, 1998 ME 175, ¶ 7, 714 A.2d 809, 812. Where boundaries are, however, on the face of the earth is a question of fact, and a trial court's findings of boundary locations are reviewed for clear error. Id. This Court will affirm the trial court's findings on appeal unless there is no credible evidence on the record to support them ... or ... the court bases its findings of fact upon a clear misapprehension of the meaning of the evidence. Id. (quoting Rhoda v. Fitzpatrick, 655 A.2d 357, 360 (Me.1995)). We find neither situation here. [¶ 8] First, the court concluded that Silas Dodge's home stood on the original one-acre parcel of land conveyed to him by his father. William's original conveyance to Silas and his later reservation in the 1891 Pendleton deed of one acre to Silas Dodge where his house now stands supports this conclusion. The court reasoned that the location of Silas Dodge's house would assist the court in determining the location of the Grindles' property. [¶ 9] Second, the court's findings that Silas's house was 20 feet from the Grindles' home, his barn was 70 feet from the Grindles' home, his well was next to his barn, and a circular driveway was in front of his house were supported by: (1) aerial photographs from 1939, 1966, and 1972 indicating that Silas maintained two structures and a well on the land just to the southwest of where the Grindles' home now stands; (2) Joyce Yeaton, Silas's granddaughter, who told Small that her recollection regarding the Dodge land was consistent with Small's determination of the location of Dodge's house; (3) Charles Quimby, Sr., a long-time resident of Islesboro, who testified that his recollections concerning the location of the Silas Dodge house, barn, and well in 1914 were consistent with Small's determinations; (4) Dale Hatch, Grindles' predecessor in title and the greatgrandson of Silas Dodge, who testified that the Dodge family house stood on the land when he received title to the land; and (5) Bruce Van Note, another surveyor hired by the Grindles, who testified that he observed evidence of a well on the property just southwesterly of where the Grindles' house now stands. [¶ 10] Third, the court's finding that an old 1¼ inch iron pipe was a replacement monument for the missing stake and stones in the northernmost corner of the Grindles' property directly corroborates, and is consistent with, the court's conclusions regarding the boundaries of the Grindles' land. See Theriault v. Murray, 588 A.2d 720, 722 (Me. 1991) (the physical disappearance of a monument does not terminate its status as a boundary marker if the court can ascertain its location through other probative evidence). [¶ 11] Small determined that the iron pipe was a replacement monument for the missing stake and stones by reviewing other probative evidence. Small reviewed a 1968 survey sketch by Henry Hatch, a deceased Islesboro surveyor, who surveyed Harlan Pendleton's land that bordered the Grindles' land to the northeast. Hatch's survey sketch referenced an iron pipe as the monument for the westernmost corner of the Pendleton property (the northernmost corner of the Grindles' property). Small also reviewed a 1929 deed describing land that bordered the Grindles' land from the Grindles' easternmost corner to the Grindles' northernmost corner, and from the northernmost corner to the Grindles' westernmost corner. The 1929 deed, like the 1968 Hatch survey sketch, refers to an iron pipe in the northernmost corner of the Grindles' property. In addition, the 1929 deed description corresponded with Small's determination regarding the location of the westernmost corner of the Grindles' land, where Small found another iron pipe, lying under the ground and covered by moss, that he considered a disturbed monument but nevertheless a clue to the location of the westernmost corner. Finally, Jude Berry, the predecessor in title to Coombs's property, testified that the Coombs's land was pie-shaped, a finding consistent with Small's boundary determinations and inconsistent with boundaries proposed by Coombs's surveyors. The court's finding that the iron pipe served as a replacement monument was not clearly erroneous.