Opinion ID: 2054348
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Referee's Assessment of the Deed

Text: [¶ 21] We next examine the referee's report for errors of law. A determination of a boundary between properties as ascertained from a deed is a question of law[;][w]here [a boundary] is on the face of the earth is a question of fact, which will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. Wallingford v. Kennedy, 2000 ME 112, ¶ 15, 753 A.2d 493, 497 (quoting Lawton v. Richmond, 1997 ME 34, ¶ 9, 690 A.2d 953, 955). Typically the face of the deed is examined to reveal the intent of parties, unless facts outside the deed reveal a latent ambiguity  then the standard rules of construction and circumstances surrounding the drafting of the deed are used to resolve the issue of intent. Wallingford, 2000 ME 112, ¶ 15, 753 A.2d at 497. Unless application of the standard rules of construction would yield absurd results or results manifestly inconsistent with the intention of the parties to the deed, the rules require that boundaries be controlled in descending order or priority by monuments, courses, distances and quantity. Id. ¶ 18. [¶ 22] We have recognized that the physical disappearance of a monument terminates its status as a boundary marker unless its former location can be ascertained through extrinsic evidence. Milligan v. Milligan, 624 A.2d 474, 478 (Me.1993). In the case before us, it is undisputed the stakes and stones identified in the Fairley deed are missing, and that no extrinsic evidence was presented to establish their location. Although it is possible to locate an ambiguous or unknown starting monument by measuring a known course backward from the terminus of the first call, Taylor v. Hanson, 541 A.2d 155, 158 (Me.1988), the missing stake and stones described in the Fairley deed were both the beginning and the terminus of the first call, so there is nothing to measure back from to locate the starting point. [¶ 23] The referee correctly found that the course and distance could not define the boundary line. While the course and distance are specific on the face of the Fairley deed, the only thing that can give these calls any context or application are the missing monuments. Fairley's proposed boundary line from the spring, which happens to be about 60 rods and runs in a southwesterly direction, would be legitimate only if the spring were identified as a monument. Because the spring is not so identified, it cannot be used as a starting point. The quantity measurement of two acres also cannot be controlling because of erosion over the last hundred years. Thus, the referee's report did not err in its understanding of the legal principles guiding deed interpretation. Because a boundary line could not be located from the deed, the referee turned to the adverse possession claims to assess whether a boundary could be established by assessing what land the parties used. In doing so, the referee did not err as a matter of law.