Court Opinion

ID: 9406216
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 14:05:51.024982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:28.114784
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: JUNE 23, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                 Commonwealth of Kentucky
                           Court of Appeals

                              NO. 2022-CA-0201-MR

STEVE A. ROBERTS                                                       APPELLANT

                 APPEAL FROM POWELL CIRCUIT COURT
v.             HONORABLE LISA HAYDEN WHISMAN, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 20-CI-00184

FRANKLIN R. MCGUIRE AND
AMANDA T. MCGUIRE                                                       APPELLEES

                                     OPINION
                                    AFFIRMING

                                   ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: ECKERLE, KAREM, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

MCNEILL, JUDGE: This is a boundary dispute case involving a 12.53-acre tract

of land located in Powell County, Kentucky (hereafter, the “Property”). Appellant

is Steve A. Roberts (“Roberts”). The Appellees are Franklin R. McGuire and

Amanda T. McGuire (the “McGuires”). In December of 2020, the McGuires filed

a Petition for a Declaration of Rights in Powell Circuit Court alleging, inter alia,

that they are the owners of the Property as evidenced by their deeds of record.
They further assert that Roberts erroneously claims to be the owner of the

Property, also by deed. The McGuires sought damages, equitable relief, to have

Roberts’ deed be stricken from the county clerk’s records, and to enjoin Roberts

from interfering with the Property. After a bench trial on the matter, the trial court

issued a judgment in favor of the McGuires on January 28, 2022. Roberts appeals

to this Court as a matter of right. No reply brief was filed. For the following

reasons, we affirm.

                Roberts generally argues on appeal that the trial court erred in its

“characterization of the determination to be made.” He specifically alleges that the

court failed to address the applicable law. Roberts correctly states that

“[t]he construction of a deed is a matter of law, and the intention of the parties is to

be gathered from the four corners of the instrument.” Phelps v. Sledd, 479 S.W.2d

894, 896 (Ky. 1972). However, because the court was the finder of fact here, we

review its factual determinations for clear error. CR1 52.01. Our review has been

summarized as follows:

                the dispositive question that we must answer, therefore,
                is whether the trial court’s findings of fact are
                clearly erroneous, i.e., whether or not those findings are
                supported by substantial evidence. [S]ubstantial evidence
                is [e]vidence that a reasonable mind would accept as
                adequate to support a conclusion and evidence that, when
                taken alone or in the light of all the evidence, . . . has
                sufficient probative value to induce conviction in the

1
    Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

                                            -2-
             minds of reasonable men. Regardless of conflicting
             evidence, the weight of the evidence, or the fact that the
             reviewing court would have reached a contrary finding,
             due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial
             court to judge the credibility of the witnesses because
             judging the credibility of witnesses and weighing
             evidence are tasks within the exclusive province of the
             trial court. Thus, [m]ere doubt as to the correctness of [a]
             finding [will] not justify [its] reversal, and appellate
             courts should not disturb trial court findings that are
             supported by substantial evidence.

Moore v. Asente, 110 S.W.3d 336, 354 (Ky. 2003) (internal quotation marks and

footnotes omitted). In addition to these admonitions, there is no indication that

Roberts filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the court’s judgment. There is

also no indication that he requested additional findings pursuant to CR 52.04.

             CR 52.04 states that a final judgment shall not be
             reversed or remanded because the trial court did not
             make a finding of fact on an issue essential to the
             judgment unless that omission has been brought to the
             judge’s attention by a written request for that finding or
             by a motion filed within ten days after entry of the
             judgment.

Anderson v. Johnson, 350 S.W.3d 453, 457 (Ky. 2011) (internal quotation marks

and footnote omitted).

             The trial court in the present case entered nineteen findings of facts.

Finding six indicates that, “[d]uring the bench trial, two surveyors were called.

One by each side.” After discussing their testimony, the court concluded that

“[b]ased on the testimony of both expert surveyors, this court finds that the Donnie

                                         -3-
Roberts plat does not conform to acceptable surveyors’ standards and cannot be

relied upon to convey land with any degree of certainty . . . [and that] exhibit 12 is

a true and accurate depiction of the boundary line that divides the Petitioners’ and

Respondent’s land.” As previously stated, the court ultimately ruled in favor of the

McGuires. In consideration of the record presented and the law, we cannot

conclude that the trial court committed clear error. Therefore, we AFFIRM.

             ALL CONCUR.

 BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:

 David M. Ward                             Ira S. Kilburn
 Winchester, Kentucky                      Salt Lick, Kentucky

                                          -4-