Opinion ID: 886464
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 35 Whether the District Court correctly determined that the Big Horn Tract's northern boundary is along the east-west quarter section line of Section 32. ¶ 36 The District Court determined that the documents conveying title to the Big Horn Tract lots are ambiguous because of discrepancies between the description in the Certificate of Dedication on Plat E-52 and the location of Best's monuments. Consequently, after examining the circumstances surrounding the creation of the Big Horn Tract to determine the Zollingers' intent, the court concluded that the northern boundary of the Big Horn Tract is along the east-west quarter section line of Section 32. Hence the court further concluded that Tract 1, COS 1898 is part of the Big Horn Tract and, as such, it belongs to the Judes. ¶ 37 Olson argues on appeal that the District Court erred because Best's monuments marking the corners and boundary of the Big Horn Tract are the original monuments for the tract and should control the location of the Big Horn Tract's northern boundary line. Thus, Olson maintains that the Big Horn Tract's northern boundary is as depicted on COS 1898, therefore, Olson owns Tract 1, COS 1898. ¶ 38 The Judes argue on the other hand that while Olson is correct that original monuments control, Best's monuments are not the original monuments. The oldest, original monument referenced on Plat E-52 is the monument for the northeast quarter corner set by the United States Government in 1905. Hence, the Judes assert that it should control the location of the northern boundary of the Big Horn Tract. ¶ 39 When surveyors use corner sections and lines to base measurements and plot tracts, it is essential that they properly identify and authenticate the original monument. Helehan v. Ueland (1986), 223 Mont. 228, 231, 725 P.2d 1192, 1194. Original corners, as established by the government surveyors, if they can be found, or the places where they were originally established, if they can be definitely determined, are conclusive on all persons owning or holding with reference thereto, without regard to whether they were located correctly or not, and must remain the true corners or monuments by which to determine the boundaries. Vaught v. McClymond (1945), 116 Mont. 542, 557, 155 P.2d 612, 619 (quoting 11 C.J.S. Boundaries § 11, p. 552). Moreover, in ascertaining the lines of land or in re-establishing the lines of a survey, the footsteps of the original surveyor, so far as discoverable on the ground by his monuments, should be followed and it is immaterial if the lines actually run by the original surveyor are incorrect. Vaught, 116 Mont. at 550, 155 P.2d at 616 (citing Ayers v. Watson (1891), 137 U.S. 584, 11 S.Ct. 201, 34 L.Ed. 803; Galt v. Willingham (5th Cir.1926), 11 F.2d 757). See also Buckley v. Laird (1972), 158 Mont. 483, 491-92, 493 P.2d 1070, 1074-75. ¶ 40 Olson asserts that the District Court erred when it determined that Best improperly set the monuments for the northern boundary of the Big Horn Tract. However, Allen, who was Olson's own expert witness, testified that Best used improper methodology in surveying the Big Horn Tract. ¶ 41 The Big Horn Tract plat references two original government corners. Best utilized the SW corner NE¼ SE¼ Sec. 32 T6S, R4E, M.P.M. as the starting point of his survey for the Big Horn Tract. Furthermore, rather than being the creator of the east-west quarter section line of Section 32, Best was only retracing it, and he retraced it incorrectly. The original government surveyors started at the corner of Sections 4, 5, 32 and 33 and proceeded north to establish the quarter section monument. As reflected by the location of his placed monuments, Best made no effort to follow the footsteps of the original government surveyors even though it was his duty as a surveyor. Best's failure to correctly locate and identify the original corners caused him to place his monuments for the northern boundary of the Big Horn Tract 108 feet south of the east-west quarter section line even though Plat E-52 shows the northern boundary lying along the east-west quarter section line. ¶ 42 Olson also argues that the District Court erred in determining that the deeds of conveyance for the Big Horn Tract lots are ambiguous. We disagree. All of the deeds of conveyance for the Big Horn Tract lots reference Plat E-52 which provides in the Certificate of Dedication signed by the Zollingers: thence North eighty-nine degrees and fifty-two minutes East ... along the North boundary of the Southeast one-quarter of said Section Thirty-two.... Moreover, the right uppermost portion of Plat E-52 depicts a dotted line extending from the northeast corner of the Big Horn Tract to the United States Government monument for the eastern terminal point of the east-west quarter section line, and provides the following language: NE Corner NE¼ SE¼ Section 32 T6S, R4E, M.P.M. ¶ 43 Thus, Plat E-52 depicts the northern boundary monuments as being on the east-west quarter section line. However, Best's placed monuments are located 108 feet south of the east-west quarter section line for Section 32. Furthermore, Best located the east quarter corner of Section 32 outside of Highway 191 when it is actually located near the centerline of Highway 191. Consequently, the District Court was correct in determining that the inconsistencies between the references on Plat E-52 and the location of Best's monuments create an ambiguity. ¶ 44 Olson further argues that the District Court erred in permitting the Judes' expert witness to testify about the Zollingers' intent in creating the Big Horn Tract. Olson suggests that § 70-20-201, MCA, applies in this situation. Section 70-20-201(1), MCA, provides that where there are definite and ascertained particulars in a description, the addition of others which are indefinite, unknown, or false does not frustrate the first mentioned particulars. ¶ 45 The Judes argue on the other hand that Olson fails to identify any indefinite, unknown particulars considered by the District Court. The District Court cited in its conclusions the Certificate of Dedication's reference to the east-west quarter section line and Plat E-52's reference to the quarter corner. We agree with the Judes that these references are definite and ascertainable and that Best's improperly placed monuments should be considered the false particulars frustrating the conveyance. ¶ 46 Furthermore, Plat E-52 and the descriptions and landmarks contained therein (including the Certificate of Dedication signed by the Zollingers) are incorporated into the deeds of conveyance in the Judes' chain of title. This Court has previously held that [w]hen lands are granted according to an official plat of a survey, the plat itself, with all its notes, lines, descriptions and landmarks, becomes as much a part of the grant or deed by which they are conveyed, and controls so far as limits are concerned, as if such descriptive features were written out on the face of the deed or grant itself. Vaught, 116 Mont. at 548-49, 155 P.2d at 616 (citing Pittsmont Copper Co. v. Vanina (1924), 71 Mont. 44, 227 P. 46; Cragin v. Powell (1888) 128 U.S. 691, 9 S.Ct. 203, 32 L.Ed. 566; Jefferis v. East Omaha Land Co. (1890), 134 U.S. 178, 10 S.Ct. 518, 33 L.Ed. 872; United States v. Otley (9th Cir.1942), 127 F.2d 988; Ohlson v. Batterton (Mo.1921), 230 S.W. 110; Read v. Bartlett (1912), 255 Ill. 76, 99 N.E. 345). We conclude that because Plat E-52 is part of the deeds of conveyance in the Judes' chain of title, the District Court was correct in allowing into evidence the Certificate of Dedication contained in Plat E-52. ¶ 47 Olson further argues that the District Court erred by considering evidence regarding the Zollingers' intent. Section 70-1-513, MCA, provides that [g]rants are to be interpreted in like manner with contracts in general, except so far as is otherwise provided [by statute]. To that end, § 28-2-905(2), MCA, provides that extrinsic evidence concerning a written agreement may be considered to explain an extrinsic ambiguity. And, [f]or the proper construction of an instrument, the circumstances under which it was made, including the situation of the subject of the instrument and of the parties to it, may also be shown so that the judge be placed in the position of those whose language he is to interpret. Section 1-4-102, MCA. Where a written instrument is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence may be utilized to discover the parties' intent. Peterson v. Hopkins (1984), 210 Mont. 429, 436, 684 P.2d 1061, 1065 (citing St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Cumiskey (1983), 204 Mont. 350, 665 P.2d 223; Adams v. Chilcott (1979), 182 Mont. 511, 597 P.2d 1140). ¶ 48 Both expert witnesses, Allen and Chandler, testified that when they draft a certificate of dedication, they attempt to draft it according to the property owner's intentions. Moreover, both Allen and Chandler testified that the publication Brown's Boundary Control and Legal Principles (4th ed.1995), is recognized as an authoritative and reliable authority on the subject of boundary control and related principles. ¶ 49 Brown's provides that the clearly expressed intent of the subdividers controls over all other survey references, including calls to monuments in the dedication. Brown's, at 303. We agree with the Judes that the following principles provided in Brown's are applicable in this matter: Principle 9. Where lines are actually located and marked on the ground as a consideration of the transaction and called for by the deed, the lines so marked most clearly show the intentions of the parties and are presumed paramount to other written considerations, senior rights and clearly expressed contrary intentions being excepted. Principle 10. Monuments called for in a deed, either directly or by a survey, or by reference to a plat that the parties relied on, are subordinate to senior rights, clearly stated contrary intentions, and original lines actually marked and surveyed, but are presumed superior to direction, distance, or area. Principle 11. Where there are conflicts between monuments called for and no senior right is interfered with, the monument most clearly showing the written intentions of the parties is controlling. Moreover, in its December 28, 2000 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the District Court adopted Brown's Principle 11 in making its determination because the location of Best's monuments conflicts with the location of the government's original monument for the east quarter corner of Section 32. ¶ 50 These fundamental survey principles provide that the parties' intent is paramount to all other considerations when interpreting surveys and conveyances. In the case sub judice, the Certificate of Dedication on Plat E-52 clearly shows that the Zollingers intended that the northern boundary of the Big Horn Tract extend to the east-west quarter section line and not to Best's erroneously located monuments. ¶ 51 Best failed to survey the Big Horn Tract pursuant to the Zollingers' clearly expressed intentions. Plat E-52's references to the government section line controls the location of the northern boundary of the Big Horn Tract. Relying on previous decisions, courts have given surveyors guidance in the resolution of problems. Three basic elements which have been identified are: 1) An occupancy right that has ripened into a legal right extinguishes or becomes superior to all written title to occupied land. 2) As between private parties in a land dispute, a senior right is superior to a junior right. 3) Written intentions of the parties are paramount. Brown's, at 249. ¶ 52 Accordingly, we hold that the District Court correctly determined that the Big Horn Tract's northern boundary is along the east-west quarter section line of Section 32.