Opinion ID: 3001464
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Deeds

Text: The third appeal, No. 06-2456, deals with the final two issues: interpretation of the 1991 and 1996 Deeds, which determine who owns the wall, and the rights and obligations due each party under the Indentures. The parties agree that the canal company conveyed the land next to the wall (“the Reserve”) to Federal Paper Board Co. (International Paper’s predecessor-in-interest) by quitclaim deed in 1991. Federal Paper Board then conveyed the Reserve to Field in 1996 by warranty deed. What is disputed is whether the wall itself was included in either or both of those transactions. The canal company argues that the wording of the 1996 Deed, explicitly excluding the wall from the conveyance, proves that the 1991 Deed did convey the wall to Federal Paper Board (and therefore International Paper). The canal company then argues that the 1996 Deed did not change the grant, proving that International Paper still owned the wall at the time of collapse. (Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,/That wants it down . . . .) The district court found that the wording of the 1991 Deed was clear. The Deed conveyed “[a] strip of land 30 feet in width, more or less, . . . bounded on the east by the west right-of-way line of Main Street, on the south by [described properties], . . . on the west by a line [parallel to a certain lot], and on the north by the south wall of the north head race. . . .” This, the court found, indicated beyond any doubt that the parcel conveyed was bounded by the wall, but that it did not include the wall. The court also focused on the words “more or less,” which it noted are “used as words of precaution and safety and are intended to cover unimportant inaccuracies.” 23 Am. Jur. 2d Deeds § 258. We, too, find this reading compelling. The 1991 Deed, at least, conveyed the Reserve, but not Nos. 05-2394, 06-1481, 06-2456 19 the wall, to International Paper’s predecessor, leaving the wall in the canal company’s hands. The canal company resists this conclusion by pointing to the 1996 Deed, which explicitly excludes the wall from the description of the property (the “north property line is the south face of the wall”). It argues that this wording raises the inference that the 1991 Deed may be ambiguous after all because it was not as precise. The flaw in the canal company’s argument is timing: a later deed cannot render an earlier deed ambiguous. See Mann v. Mann, 671 N.E.2d 73, 76 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996); Green Bay and Miss. Canal Co. v. Hewett, 12 N.W. 382, 383-84 (Wis. 1882) (“This is an application of the ancient rule or maxim that ‘the first deed and the last will shall operate.’ ”). Although external circumstances can render a deed latently ambiguous, it must be so when written, even if the parties only discover it later on. In 1991, there were no discoverable external circumstances that rendered the deed ambiguous: the ambiguity-creating document would not exist for another five years. The district court correctly found, as a matter of law, that the 1991 Deed governed and was unambiguous within its four corners; the 1996 Deed was a separate document by a separate grantor and did not retroactively muddy up the earlier document. (We note in passing the perverse consequences an alternative ruling would have. Artful drafting of a later deed would allow a landowner to divest herself of land without actually conveying it, a ploy that could come in very handy if the plot of land were, for instance, contaminated.) On appeal, the canal company also raises a rule of deed construction for artificial monuments, arguing that the property line should, as a matter of law, be measured to the midpoint of the wall (meaning that the 1991 Deed con20 Nos. 05-2394, 06-1481, 06-2456 veyed at least the half of the wall facing the rest of the Reserve). The district court invited the canal company to present other deeds showing alternative ownership, but it instead submitted only a surveyor’s affidavit. It never mentioned the artificial-monument rule to the district court. This court will not split the wall in two in such an odd way: because this argument was not raised before the district court, it is waived. Taubenfeld v. AON Corp., 415 F.3d 597, 599 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Heller v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, 833 F.2d 1253, 1261-62 (7th Cir. 1987) (“On numerous occasions we have held that if a party fails to press an argument before the district court, he waives the right to present that argument on appeal. . . . As we have made clear, it is axiomatic that arguments not raised below are waived on appeal.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted)). We agree with the district court that the canal company owned the retaining wall at the time of collapse.