Opinion ID: 1233787
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Huffman Proved Parties' Understanding of Boundary Line.

Text: The Petersons next argue that Huffman failed to prove that the parties purchased their lots with the understanding that the boundary between the properties was marked by a metal T-post and a cottonwood tree to the east of Huffman's driveway and that such markers were sufficient to establish the boundary. The Petersons argue that without evidence of this shared understanding, the common grantor doctrine does not apply. The metal post identified by Huffman as a marker of the boundary between Lots 9 and 10 was placed in the ground by James before the Petersons and Huffman acquired their respective lots. James testified that the post was meant to stabilize one of several telephone poles that had been placed as a barrier along the east side of the driveway in an effort to keep traffic from going beyond the roadway and onto the property then occupied by James' father. Peterson testified that the post was in place at the time he purchased Lot 9 in 1995 and remained in place when Huffman purchased Lot 10 in 1999. Huffman testified that prior to his purchase of Lot 10, James accompanied him on a walk around the perimeter of the lot to show Huffman the boundary lines. Huffman stated that he and James started at the northeast corner of Lot 10 where the metal post was located and that James represented the post to be the original northeast property stake. The cottonwood tree alleged to be a boundary marker between Lots 9 and 10 was planted by James in 1991 or 1992 on the east side of the Lot 10 driveway before the Petersons and Huffman acquired their lots. Huffman testified that during his walk with James around the perimeter of Lot 10, James stated that the tree was planted on the property line and that Peterson knows about it, it's no big deal. Huffman also explained that prior to discovering the encroachment, Peterson asked his permission to landscape around the tree. Peterson, however, testified that another post was located at the fence line to the south of Lots 9 and 10. Peterson stated that the post was located in the southwest corner of his property when he purchased it and described the post as a wood lath painted pink [with] a pink flag. As shown on a map of Lots 9 and 10 entered into evidence at trial, this post is in line with the platted boundary between the lots. Huffman testified that during his walk with James around Lot 10, James indicated that the southeast boundary marker was near a common gate into a city park but, due to the heavy growth in the area, told Huffman of the boundary, it's around here. Huffman's testimony regarding James' representations that the boundary between Lots 9 and 10 was marked by the post and tree was disputed at trial. James testified that the post was installed for the sole purpose of preventing the telephone poles from rolling and not to mark a boundary. James stated that he never represented that the post marked the boundary between the lots. When asked how long the post remained in place, James explained that he tried to pull the post out of the ground when he removed the telephone poles but was unable to remove the post. Further, James testified that while walking the perimeter of Lot 10 with Huffman, he only referred to survey stakes as boundary markers. Peterson testified that he purchased Lot 9 based on the legal plat and that James told both Huffman and him that the post had nothing to do with the boundary. Although Peterson and James contradicted Huffman's testimony regarding James' representations of the boundary between Lots 9 and 10, the credibility of witness testimony and weight to be given the testimony are questions for the trier of fact. See In re Guardianship of Robert D., 269 Neb. 820, 696 N.W.2d 461 (2005). In this case, the court saw and heard the testimony of Huffman, Peterson, and James and, based on its judgment, gave greater weight to Huffman's testimony. An appellate court will consider the fact that the trial court saw and heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor while testifying, and will give great weight to the trial court's judgment as to credibility. Hamit v. Hamit, 271 Neb. 659, 715 N.W.2d 512 (2006). The common grantor rule would be of little use if it could be defeated simply by the assertion of contrary accounts, without any regard for whether those accounts are credible or persuasive to the fact finder. We also note the testimony of Peterson and James that until the encroachment was discovered, both assumed that the entire driveway was located on Lot 10. Further, although there was no direct testimony that James pointed out the tree and post at the time of the conveyance of Lot 9 to the Petersons, the subsequent conduct of the Petersons in occupying Lot 9 from 1995 until 2000 and observing a boundary along the east of the driveway supports an inference that they purchased Lot 9 with the understanding that the west boundary of the premises ran through the tree and post. See Kraus v. Mueller, 12 Wis.2d 430, 107 N.W.2d 467 (1961). Although the tree and post may not have been placed with the intent that they serve as boundary markers, according to Huffman's testimony, James used them in that capacity when conveying the property. We find nothing in the law to preclude fixed, visible landmarks from being used to define a boundary line, even if that was not their original purpose. The evidence establishes that the landmarks Huffman testified had been identified by James as boundary markers were apparent upon visual examination of the property when Lots 9 and 10 were conveyed to the Petersons and Huffman. The parties were under the impression that the boundary between Lots 9 and 10 ran east of Huffman's driveway, as evidenced by their subsequent conduct on the properties and mutual surprise after discovering that the plat specifications indicated otherwise. This evidence, giving weight to the district court's evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses, is sufficient to prove that the common grantor doctrine is applicable. Thus, we conclude that the district court properly applied the common grantor doctrine, quieting title to the disputed property in Huffman. We find the Petersons' second and third assignments of error to be without merit. The Petersons also assign that the district court erred in failing to eject Huffman from their property. Having concluded that the court correctly quieted title in the disputed property in favor of Huffman, we naturally conclude that the court did not err in dismissing the Petersons' ejectment action and reject the Petersons' final assignment of error.