Opinion ID: 1997643
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The third and fourth calls of the Snyder deed

Text: When interpreting a deed, a court should first look for the controlling intent of the parties on the face of the deed. Taylor v. Hanson, 541 A.2d 155, 157 (Me.1988). The intent of the parties may not be clear from the face of a deed, however, if the deed contains a latent ambiguity. Id. A latent ambiguity occurs when, in applying the description to the ground, the facts extrinsic to the document controvert or in some way render unclear the deed's apparently unambiguous terms. Id. at 158. Snyder contends that her deed contains a latent ambiguity, noting that the westerly border of her parcel cannot be 200 feet as set forth in the fourth call in her deed if one applies the third and fourth calls for right angles as ninety degree angles. Pursuant to that application, the length of the westerly border of her parcel is only 169.54' from the northwest tip of her parcel to the mean low water mark (and only 147.24' if measured to the rebar set by Staples at the normal high water mark). When a latent ambiguity exists a court may consider extrinsic evidence, including the circumstances existing at the time of the making of the deed or the contemporaneous construction of the deed by the grantee or grantor. Tyler v. Fickett, 73 Me. 410, 416 (1882). See also Hanson, 541 A.2d at 157. In the instant case, however, Snyder did not present any such extrinsic evidence. In the absence of extrinsic evidence, the intent of the parties should be ascertained by resort to the rules of construction of deeds, such as the familiar rule that boundaries are established in descending order of control by monuments, courses, distances and quantity. Conary, 464 A.2d at 975. Without specific evidence that the parties intended otherwise, and when the results are not absurd or manifestly inconsistent with the parties' intentions apparent from the face of the deed, the standard rules of construction will control. Hanson, 541 A.2d at 158 (citing Kinney v. Central Maine Power Co., 403 A.2d 346, 350 (Me.1979)). Snyder argues that the court's ninety degree angle interpretation of right angles, and its determination that the course controls the distance calls in her deed, leads to the absurd result that she has thirty to forty feet less than the 200 feet of length specified in the deed for her westerly boundary. By itself, however, the loss of length on one boundary is not an absurd result that is manifestly inconsistent with the parties' intentions as reflected in the provisions of Snyder's deed. Compare, Proctor v. Hinkley, 462 A.2d 465, 472 (Me.1983) (holding that a call to go east means in an easterly direction, where going due east would result in the absurdity of grantees losing most or all of their lake frontage). [3] The court did not err in finding as it did.