Opinion ID: 2137508
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Survey Cost Allocation

Text: SDCL 21-40-8 provides: The court shall make such order respecting the costs and disbursements including the costs and expenses of a survey thereof and of the establishing of any markings of such boundaries between the parties to such action as it shall deem just. In this case, the court deemed it just to allocate fifty percent of the cost of the court-ordered survey to Jensen and to divide the remaining fifty percent of the cost among Weyrens, Gross and the sisters. SDCL 19-15-16 provides that the initial disbursement for court-appointed experts shall be paid in equal parts by the opposing litigants ... and thereafter assessed as costs of the suit. By its terms, this statute does not restrict the court's equitable discretion over the ultimate assessment of costs. Here the court's ultimate assessment is consistent with the initial allocation of expenses prescribed by SDCL 19-15-16, i.e., half to plaintiff Jensen and half to defendants Weyrens, Gross and sisters. The record supports this allocation of the cost of the survey. The trial court specifically noted that, under SDCL 21-40-8, the survey costs are to be allocated between the parties on an equitable basis. It analyzed the arguments of all parties as to their positions, asserting specific equitable allocations. In explaining its ultimate determination for the allocation, the trial court stated (in its memorandum decision, incorporated into the findings): No one party is entirely to blame or blameless in this matter. Jensen is correct in contending that if he would have accepted the sisters' offer, he would have had less than 115 feet of shoreline, measured according to Johnson's plat. The sisters' settlement proposal also ignores the fact that although the immediate boundary dispute between the parties may have been resolved, the boundary question would have lingered and could have arisen in future transfers. The current plat establishes judicial monuments pursuant to SDCL 21-40-6 so that all parties and their future grantees are assured of where the boundaries are. Weyrens knew that there was a boundary dispute when he sold the property to Jensen; he guaranteed 115 feet of shoreline, and if there were any problems he was to solve them at his expense. Gross agreed to give Weyrens peaceable possession of the property during the contract term, and to deliver good and sufficient warranty deed in performance of the contract. As there were persons claiming some of the same property, there was a constructive eviction of Weyrens and Jensen which was a breach of Gross' contract warranties. (Citations omitted.) Both Gross and Weyrens have limited benefit by the outcome of this litigation, because they are held to the contract sale prices. After all is said and done, they are both able to deliver good title to their purchasers. Jensen has accrued the benefit of resolution of a boundary dispute of which he was aware when he entered into the contract, and he now has 115 feet of valuable lake front property and assured boundaries. He was inflexible in his settlement negotiations; his insistence that the other parties bear the whole cost of resolution of the matter led to extra legal expense for all parties. The sisters are in possession of a lot in which they have assured boundaries and to which they hold title, assuming that their ownership interest is borne out by the descriptions in the deeds of record. Although this lot is too narrow for resale as a unit upon which improvements may be built, it does have value to them as an addition to the Ramige lot. (Emphasis added.) From reading the foregoing determination by the court, coupled with all of the other recitations in both the memorandum decision and findings of fact and conclusions of law, we believe that the trial court adequately articulated a sound basis for the allocation of the survey costs. Clearly, there was no abuse of discretion. Wiggins, supra .