Opinion ID: 1997643
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The low water mark as a monument

Text: The first call of the Snyder deed refers to the westerly boundary of the Crawford/Goodness lot: [b]eginning at a point on the northerly shore of said Field's Pond at the southwest corner of a lot of land now or formerly owned or occupied by Richard J. Crawford.... When a deed describes the land conveyed by reference to an adjoining tract, the boundary line of the adjoining tract referred to becomes a monument to which courses, distances and quantity must yield. Hodgdon, 411 A.2d at 671. The southwest corner of the Crawford/Goodness lot is a monument vis-a-vis the Snyder deed. The location of that corner must be understood in order to understand the phrase in the fourth call of the Snyder deed, to a point on the northerly shore of said Pond.... The general rule is that title to land bordered by great ponds [4] extends to the seasonal normal and natural low water line at the time of the original conveyance. Hermansen & Richards, Maine Principles of Ownership Along Water Bodies, 47 Me. L.Rev. 35, 40 (1995) [hereinafter Hermansen & Richards, Ownership Along Water Bodies ]. Although the word shore, when properly used, refers to the land between the ordinary low stage and high stage of tidal water, the word shore is equivalent to the term bank when used in conveyances of property that border fresh water. See Hinkley, 462 A.2d at 473 n. 6. The term bank refers to the sloped edge of a body of water, and it may or may not include the low water mark. Id. In interpreting a deed that uses the word bank or, as here, the word shore, it is necessary to determine whether the deed conveys to the low [5] or high [6] water mark. To is a word of exclusion. Snow v. Mount Desert Island Real Estate Co., 84 Me. 14, 15, 24 A. 429 (1891). See also Hermansen & Richards, Ownership Along Water Bodies, 47 Me.L.Rev. at 53. Thus a line running to an object excludes that object. Snow, 84 Me. at 15. The phrase in the Snyder deed to a point on the northerly shore ... thus calls by its terms for a terminus at the high water mark of Field's Pond, excluding the shore. The court found in this case, however, that the beginning point of the first call of the Snyder deed is the low water mark. [7] As explained above, the beginning point of the Snyder deed is defined according to the southwest corner of the adjoining Crawford/Goodness lot, a monument. The fourth call to a point on the northerly shore also refers to a monument. Hermansen & Richards, Ownership Along Water Bodies, 47 Me.L.Rev. at 48. Thus the court had to reconcile inconsistent monuments at opposite corners of the Snyder property, i.e., one designating the high water mark and one designating the low water mark. We have previously held that, in the absence of some evidence that the grantor intended to separate the upland from the land between the high water mark and low water mark, inconsistent monuments which place the termini of one boundary at the low water mark and the termini of another boundary at the high water mark, will be reconciled in favor of including the land to the low water mark. Dunton v. Parker, 97 Me. 461, 469, 54 A. 1115 (1903). This is the result even when the call connecting the two termini, when read alone, appears to exclude that land. Id. See also Whitmore v. Brown, 100 Me. 410, 414, 61 A. 985 (1905) (holding that the call to the shore and then by the shore, unqualified, excludes the shore, but when one or both termini of that call are at the low water mark, it includes the land to the low water mark). This rule reflects the presumption that a grantor of water's edge property usually intends to convey land down to the low water mark. Dunton, 97 Me. at 469, 54 A. 1115; Snow, 84 Me. at 17, 24 A. 429. In the instant case, the fourth and fifth calls of the Snyder deed read, to a point on the northerly shore ...; thence easterly on and by said northerly shore of said Pond ... to the point begun at. According to Dunton, the call  to a point on the northerly shore ... thence easterly on and by said northerly shore can fairly be read as a phrase of exclusion. Nevertheless, according to Dunton, the fact that the termini of the fifth call (and the beginning point of the first call) is at the low water mark justifies the court's interpretation that the Snyder parcel is bounded by the low water mark. The court's decision was not clearly erroneous. [8] The entry is: Judgment affirmed. All concurring.