Opinion ID: 888504
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of the Doctrine to the Davis-Lockman Conveyance

Text: ¶ 44 Turning now to the case at hand, we first note that the alleged easement over Tract 1 was reserved, if at all, when Tract 1 was split from single ownership. Ruana, 275 Mont. at 448, 450-51, 913 P.2d at 1252, 1253-54. That event occurred in October 1987 when Davis conveyed Tract 1 to the Lockmans. Thus, the Davis-Lockman transaction is decisive. Furthermore, as explained above, the subject to clause in the Davis-Lockman deed did not create or reserve easement rights in Davis. Ruana, 275 Mont. at 449, 913 P.2d at 1252-53. Thus, the existence of the alleged easement over Tract 1 depends on (1) the incorporation of COS 4446 into the Davis-Lockman deed and (2) the adequacy of the description of the easement on COS 4446. [2] Halverson, 268 Mont. at 173, 885 P.2d at 1289; Ruana, 275 Mont. at 450, 913 P.2d at 1253. ¶ 45 The Waldhers contend that COS 4446 was not incorporated, in its entirety, into the Davis-Lockman deed. They argue that the limited reference in the deed to Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey No. 4446 (as opposed to a reference to the entire COS) was legally insufficient to incorporate COS 4446 into the deed. We disagree. In Bache, the deed described the property being conveyed by metes and bounds and then referred to the property conveyed as Tract 2 shown on Certificate of Survey No. 1657. See Bache, 267 Mont. at 282, 883 P.2d at 819. Likewise, in the case at hand, the property being conveyed is described in the Davis-Lockman deed by metes and bounds and then is referred to as Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey No. 4446. This is sufficient, for purposes of the easement-by-reference doctrine, to incorporate COS 4446 into the deed. The dispositive issue, therefore, is the adequacy of the description on COS 4446.