Opinion ID: 2569613
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: boundary between lot 16 and the stafford property

Text: Stafford argues the district judge should have determined the irrigation lateral, referred to in Stafford's deed, was a monument and should have used this monument to determine the boundary line between Lot 16 and the Stafford property, rather than utilizing the metes and bounds call in the deed. The district judge clearly referenced the lateral and determined that Feature 2 as identified by Dr. Plew was basically in the same location as the lateral. The district judge noted the metes and bounds description in Stafford's deed was consistent with an earlier conveyance involving the properties and the Skinner surveys of 1995 and 1996 which also placed the boundary line along the irrigation lateral described in Stafford's deed. The district judge further found that Feature 2 follows the line of the surveyed boundary to a rather remarkable degree. He therefore concluded there was no ambiguity concerning the location of the boundary line between Lot 16 and the Stafford property and that the line could be clearly identified using the metes and bounds description, incorporating the reference to the lateral (Feature 2). Stafford asserts Feature 2 represents a monument and the district judge should have examined whether the parties intended Feature 2 to be the boundary between Lot 16 and the Stafford property. Stafford argues the district judge erred by instead using the metes and bounds description to determine the boundary. The argument is unavailing in two respects. First, notwithstanding Stafford's color of title and prescriptive easement arguments, the legal significance of Stafford's argument is unclear in that, assuming Feature 2 was a monument and established the boundary between Lot 16 and the Stafford property, Stafford still erected a new fence and excavated a new ditch on Weaver's side of Feature 2, clearly outside of Stafford's property. Second, a monument is generally considered to be a permanent, visible and identifiable physical feature. See Sun Valley Shamrock Resources, Inc. v. Travelers Leasing Corp., 118 Idaho 116, 119, 794 P.2d 1389, 1392 (1990) (citing Achter v. Maw, 27 Utah 2d 149, 493 P.2d 989 (1972) (monument must be a tangible landmark, have physical properties such as stability, permanence, and definiteness of location); Scott v. Hansen, 18 Utah 2d 303, 422 P.2d 525 (1966) (monument must be definitely identified and located)). Feature 2 cannot be deemed a monument, for purposes of resolving the boundary dispute between Weaver and Stafford, because Stafford filled in Feature 2 in the fall of 1994. The district judge was thus unable to utilize the actual irrigation lateral named in the deed because Stafford had destroyed it. The findings made by the district judge are supported by substantial and competent evidence and support his determination that Feature 2 is located where the original irrigation lateral was and allows an accurate determination of the boundary between the Weaver and Stafford property utilizing the metes and bounds description in the deed. We therefore hold the district judge did not err by using the metes and bounds description to determine the boundary between Lot 16 and the Stafford property.