Court Opinion

ID: 9928400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 17:10:31.436193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:48:06.665392
License: Public Domain

No. 54              January 31, 2024                 449

         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                 STATE OF OREGON

                STATE OF OREGON,
                  by and through its
         Oregon Department of Transportation,
                 Plaintiff-Respondent,
                            v.
              Howard N. DIETRICH, JR.
                         et al.,
                     Defendants,
                           and
            THUNDERBIRD HOTEL, LLC,
                 Defendant-Appellant.
           Multnomah County Circuit Court
                 19CV48411; A178088

  Steffan Alexander, Judge.
  Argued and submitted May 12, 2023.
   Michael J. Kavanaugh argued the cause and filed the
briefs for appellant.
   Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
  Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Mooney, Judge, and
Pagán, Judge.
  MOONEY, J.
  Affirmed.
450   Dept. of Transportation v. Dietrich
Cite as 330 Or App 449 (2024)                                           451

          MOONEY, J.
          Defendant Thunderbird Hotel, LLC (Thunderbird),1
appeals a judgment quieting title in the State of Oregon to a
strip of land that lies beneath and immediately west of the
Interstate-5 (I-5) bridge along the south bank of the Columbia
River at the north end of Hayden Island. Thunderbird con-
tends that the state conveyed that strip of land to Hayden
Island, Incorporated, in 1975 and that Thunderbird later
acquired that strip from subsequent purchasers. The state
disagrees, contending that it retains ownership of the dis-
puted strip of land, which is part of the I-5 Right of Way.
         Thunderbird raises seven assignments of error on
appeal. Assignments one and two challenge the trial court’s
construction of a 1960 judgment for the state in an eminent
domain action. Assignment three contends that the trial
court erred in sustaining the state’s objection to a question
asked by Thunderbird’s attorney when cross-examining the
state’s expert about the ownership of previously submerged
land after it was artificially filled. Assignments four, five,
and six do not adhere to the requirements of ORAP 5.45(3)
because they do not precisely challenge “rulings” of the trial
court. We nevertheless understand those assignments to
challenge the trial court’s construction of the 1975 deed of
conveyance from the state to Hayden Island, Incorporated,
and a 2004 deed to Thunderbird. In its seventh assignment,
Thunderbird contends that the trial court erred when it
rejected its statute of frauds defense.
         We conclude that the trial court did not err in rul-
ing that the state’s title to the disputed strip of land is supe-
rior to that of Thunderbird. We therefore affirm.
                  I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
        To prevail in a quiet title action, a plaintiff must
prove that it has a substantial interest in, or claim to, the
disputed property and that its title is superior to that of the
defendants. Coussens v. Stevens, 200 Or App 165, 171, 113 P3d
952 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 18 (2006). “While that standard
does not require the plaintiff’s title to be above reproach, it
   1
     Except for Thunderbird, appellant herein, all named defendants were dis-
missed below.
452                              Dept. of Transportation v. Dietrich

does require that plaintiffs prevail on the strength of their
own title as opposed to the weaknesses of defendants’ title.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because
the state relied upon the language of the various deeds of
conveyance to establish the superiority of its title to that of
Thunderbird, we review the trial court’s legal conclusions
about the intent of the parties to those conveyances for legal
error. Howe v. Greenleaf, 260 Or App 692, 700, 320 P3d
641 (2014). To the extent that the trial court made factual
findings in support of its legal conclusions, we accept those
underlying factual findings so long as they are supported
by any evidence in the record. Sea River Properties, LLC v.
Parks, 355 Or 831, 834, 333 P3d 295 (2014).2 The facts are
drawn from the record consistent with that standard.
      II.    HISTORICAL AND PROCEDURAL FACTS
A.    Historical Facts
        Hayden Island is an island situated in the Columbia
River, surrounded on all sides by river water, and located
completely within the borders of the state of Oregon.3

The Columbia River is a navigable stream that was in exis-
tence in 1859 when Oregon became a state. It is undisputed
that the state has owned the beds and banks of the Columbia
along Hayden Island since that time.
    2
      Neither party requested de novo review, and we decline to exercise our dis-
cretion to conduct such a review. ORS 19.415(3)(b).
    3
      The drawings in this opinion are intended only to facilitate the reader’s
understanding of the relative position of the river, property, and conveyances
in question. They are not drawn to scale, and they are not accurate in terms of
precise measurements, geographic contours, or otherwise. Finally, the drawings
do not depict all elements included in the relevant survey records.
Cite as 330 Or App 449 (2024)                                                453

         In the early 1900s, the State of Oregon began
acquiring land on Hayden Island to construct the I-5 bridge
and form the I-5 Right of Way.4 Acquisitions in 1915, 1938,
and 1946 resulted in state ownership of land extending gen-
erally southward, or upland, from the bank of the Columbia
on the north side of Hayden Island.

The state’s final acquisition occurred in 1960 through an
eminent domain proceeding that expanded the I-5 Right
of Way to its current width of 203 feet and established its
current western boundary. The 1960 judgment, as perti-
nent here, described one of the parcels acquired by the state
through eminent domain as:
    “[A] strip of land 83 feet in width extending from the meander
    line on the North Bank of Hayden Island to the Northerly
    line of that tract conveyed [in 1946] to the State of Oregon,
    * * * said strip of land being Westerly of and adjacent to the
    Westerly right of way line of the Pacific Highway, as said
    Westerly right of way line is described in Parcel No. 1 of
    that [1938] deed to the State of Oregon * * *.”
(Emphasis added.) The meander line refers to a survey line
that marked the bank of the Columbia River, and which orig-
inated in an 1860 survey conducted by the General Land
Office and also appeared in a county survey from 1947.

     4
       The “I-5 Right of Way” refers to the land over which the I-5 bridge was con-
structed. The parties’ briefing refers to this area generally as the “right of way”
and this opinion refers to this area more specifically as the I-5 Right of Way. We
emphasize that the undisputed property that forms the I-5 Right of Way is owned
in fee simple by the State of Oregon.
454                         Dept. of Transportation v. Dietrich

        The bank of the Columbia River on the north side of
Hayden Island located under and adjacent to the I-5 Right of
Way was artificially filled between 1966 and 1974. The filled
area was no longer submerged or submersible, and the bank
of the Columbia moved north from the old meander line to
the newly created bank. The parties agree that the fill did
not affect then-existing property rights. Ownership of the
property that was no longer submerged or submersible thus
remained in the State of Oregon.

        In 1975, after the fill was completed, the state con-
veyed a parcel of land to Hayden Island, Incorporated, one
of Thunderbird’s predecessors in interest. In relevant part,
the deed describes the property being conveyed as:

   “Beginning at the intersection of the ordinary high water
   line on the South Bank of the Columbia River with the
   Westerly right of way line of the Interstate Highway No. 5
   * * * thence in a straight line through an interchange to a
   point on the right of way at the North End of the Interchange
   N 22º 41’ 43” E, 1013.06 feet; thence N 22º 46’ 30” E, 560.0
   feet along the Westerly right of way line of Interstate 5 to the
   point of beginning.”

(Emphasis added.) The parties agree that the bearing
and distance call does not connect in a straight line to the
“Westerly right of way line of Interstate 5” established in
the 1960 judgment. It is the location of that line—where the
western side of the state’s I-5 Right of Way meets the eastern
side of the parcel conveyed to Hayden Island, Incorporated,
Cite as 330 Or App 449 (2024)                            455

in 1975—that is at the center of the parties’ dispute in the
underlying quiet title action.

Thunderbird came to own a portion of the parcel of land that
had been conveyed to Hayden Island, Incorporated, after a
series of conveyances, the most recent of which occurred in
2004. The deeds of those conveyances, including the 2004
deed, contain yet a different legal description of the east-
ern boundary of the parcel conveyed: “[T]hence South 63º
06’ East 55.91 feet, more or less, to the intersection with
the Westerly right of way of the Interstate 5 Highway.”
(Emphasis added.) As with the 1975 deed, it is undisputed
that the exact distance call in the 2004 deed does not align
with the western boundary of the I-5 Right of Way.
B.   Procedural Facts
         At the bench trial, the parties focused their dispute
on whether the eastern boundary of the 1975 conveyance,
when properly construed, runs in a straight line north from
the western boundary of the I-5 Right of Way established in
1960 to the post-fill bank of the Columbia River. In the opin-
ion of the state’s expert, Michael Fallert, a surveyor with
the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), a grant
to a meander line is a presumptive grant to the water itself.
He reasoned that because the western boundary of the I-5
Right of Way established by the 1960 judgment extended to
“the meander line,” it was an extension to the river itself.
456                              Dept. of Transportation v. Dietrich

Relying on ORS 93.310(2),5 Fallert testified that because
the I-5 Right of Way is an ascertained boundary, it prevails
over the conflicting course and distance description in the
1975 deed, meaning that the eastern boundary of the parcel
conveyed to Hayden Island, Incorporated, is, essentially, the
western boundary of the state’s I-5 Right of Way, and thus
extends in a straight line north to the river at its post-fill
location. According to Fallert, the state did not convey the
disputed strip of land to Thunderbird’s predecessor, and it
continues to own the disputed area in fee simple.
         Thunderbird also called a surveyor, Travis Jansen,
to testify as an expert. Jansen offered his opinion that
because the artificial fill caused the riverbank to move, it
converted the meander line from a reference point to the
fixed northern boundary of the parcel acquired by the state
in 1960. The western boundary of the I-5 Right of Way estab-
lished by the 1960 judgment would, thus, stop at the 1960
meander line rather than continue to the post-fill bank of
the Columbia River. At the point where the I-5 Right of Way
intersects with the meander line, Jansen would rely upon
ORS 93.310(1) and follow the course and distance descrip-
tion in the 1975 deed to determine the western boundary
of the disputed area. Construing the 1975 deed in that way
results in an approximately seventeen-foot “jog” beyond the
I-5 Right of Way. Thunderbird thus argued that that “jog”
established the eastern boundary of the parcel of land con-
veyed to Hayden Island, Incorporated, in 1975.
         As to the 2004 deed, Fallert testified for the state
that the distance call of 55.91 feet (1) did not appear in any
of the state’s deeds or judgments, and (2) if followed liter-
ally, would place the western boundary approximately
   5
     ORS 93.310 provides, as relevant:
       “The following are the rules for construing the descriptive part of a con-
   veyance of real property, when the construction is doubtful, and there are no
   other sufficient circumstances to determine it:
       “(1) Where there are certain definite and ascertained particulars in the
   description, the addition of others, which are indefinite, unknown or false,
   does not frustrate the conveyance, but it is to be construed by such particu-
   lars, if they constitute a sufficient description to ascertain its application.
       “(2) When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monu-
   ments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines, angles or sur-
   faces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount.”
Cite as 330 Or App 449 (2024)                            457

28.5 feet east of the I-5 Right of Way. However, the qualifi-
cation “more or less” indicates that the distance call is not
intended to be exact. As with his interpretation of the 1975
deed, Fallert opined that the 2004 deed language bounds the
property conveyed on the east with the western edge of the
I-5 Right of Way and that the ascertained boundary prevails
over the distance call. Each parties’ respective construction
of the relevant judgment and conveyances is shown below.

         The trial court found that Jansen’s interpreta-
tion of the 1960 judgment “would result in strips of land
between the meander line and the ordinary high-water line”
and concluded “as a matter of law[,] that the State’s expert
is correct that the [1960] judgment [included] property to
the water itself.” The trial court then concluded that, “As
a result, the Western right of way boundary also extends
to the water itself.” In construing the 1975 deed, the trial
458                          Dept. of Transportation v. Dietrich

court similarly rejected Jansen’s interpretation, concluding,
“Based on the text of the 1975 [ ] Deed, with the context
of the 1960 Final Judgment, and ORS 93.310(2), the court
finds that the State’s expert provided the correct interpreta-
tion of the legal description * * *.” Similarly, the court agreed
with Fallert with respect to the 2004 deed:
     “The court finds that construction of the * * * 2004 Deed is
     not doubtful because the distance call of 55.91 feet is ‘more
     or less’ and thus is an approximation.
        “* * * * *
         “In the alternative, the court finds that even if the con-
     struction * * * was doubtful, the Westerly right of way of
     Interstate 5 is an ascertained boundary. Thus, the Westerly
     right of way boundary is paramount over the distance call
     of 55.91 feet.”
Finally, the trial court rejected Thunderbird’s statute of
frauds defense finding that:
     “[T]he State of Oregon’s title has existed since statehood
     and there is no need for a deed to establish that title. * * *
     Moreover, the 1960 Judgment is a writing that transfers
     the Disputed Area to the State of Oregon.”
The trial court concluded that the state had established the
superiority of its title over that of Thunderbird, as a matter
of fact and law, and it quieted title to the property, including
the disputed area, in the state. This appeal followed.
                          III.   ANALYSIS
A.    Introductory Principles
         We begin with some introductory legal principles
that guide our analysis. First, “[t]he responsibility of the
court in construing a deed is to ascertain and give effect to
the intentions of the parties as found in the language of the
instrument and the circumstances attending its execution.”
Tab Enterprises v. Heare, 37 Or App 879, 884-85, 588 P2d 671
(1978). When the construction of a deed is doubtful, and there
are no other sufficient circumstances to determine it, ORS
93.310 provides rules of construction. ORS 93.310(1) pro-
vides that “definite and ascertained particulars” control over
“indefinite, unknown or false” information in a conveyance
Cite as 330 Or App 449 (2024)                                               459

instrument. ORS 93.310(2) provides that “permanent and
visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments” prevail
over conflicting “measurement[s], either of lines, angles or
surfaces.” While “ascertained boundaries and monuments”
are not statutorily defined, Black’s Law Dictionary defines
“ascertainability” as something susceptible to a “definite
and assured determination,” and “monument” as “[a]ny nat-
ural or artificial object that is fixed permanently in land and
referred to in a legal description of the land.” Black’s Law
Dictionary 140, 1207 (11th ed 2019). In short, when the loca-
tion of a property boundary is ambiguous, we first attempt
to discern the intent of the grantor. If the intent is unclear,
a course and distance description will control over an indef-
inite or incorrect description, but references to definite and
permanent boundaries and monuments in a conveyance will
prevail over an inconsistent course and distance description.6
          Second, when the boundary of land that borders
navigable waters is in dispute, there are additional consid-
erations involving state sovereignty and public resources.
The United States Constitution reserved title to the shores
of navigable waters for the states. Pollard v. Hagan, 44 US
212, 216, 11 L Ed 565 (1845). Each state has therefore held
title to the shores between the high and low water marks of
navigable waters within its boundaries since statehood. See
Johnson v. Knott, 13 Or 308, 310, 10 P 418 (1886). In this
sense, “[a] right to the shore between high and low water-
mark is a sovereign right, not a proprietary one.” Pollard, 44
US at 215-16. “[P]roprietors of land bounded on a navigable
river own the soil to [the] high-water mark, and no further.”
Andrus v. Knott, 12 Or 501, 502 n 1, 8 P 763 (1885). The “line
of ordinary high water” is “the line on the bank or shore to
which the high water ordinarily rises annually in season.”
ORS 274.005(3); see also Johnson, 13 Or at 310.
       It follows that Oregon has owned the beds and
banks of the Columbia River located within and bordering

    6
      Thunderbird does not appear to dispute that the I-5 Right of Way is an
ascertained boundary or monument, but rather, contends that the reference to the
I-5 Right of Way in the 1975 deed is erroneous because the I-5 Right of Way does
not extend past the meander line referred to in the 1960 deed. In Thunderbird’s
view, the reference to the I-5 Right of Way is “false” under ORS 93.310(1), and so
the course and distance description prevails.
460                        Dept. of Transportation v. Dietrich

the state, for the benefit of the public, from the time it
entered the Union in 1859. See Hardy v. Land Board, 274
Or App 262, 265-66, 360 P3d 647 (2015), rev den, 358 Or
550 (2016), cert den, 580 US 958 (2016) (explaining that,
under the equal footing doctrine, Oregon gained title to all
submerged and submersible lands within and bordering the
state that were under navigable or tidally influenced waters
when it became a state in 1859); ORS 274.025(1) (“The title
to the submersible and submerged lands of all navigable
streams and lakes in this state now existing or which may
have been in existence in 1859 when the state was admitted
to the Union, or at any time since admission, and which has
not become vested in any person, is vested in the State of
Oregon. The State of Oregon is the owner of the submersible
and submerged lands of such streams and lakes, and [it]
may use and dispose of the same as provided by law.”).
         With this background in mind, the precise loca-
tion of the water is often consequential, and surveyors use
“meander lines” as a tool to survey lands bordering naviga-
ble rivers. See Montgomery v. Shaver, 40 Or 244, 249, 66 P
923 (1901) (explaining that a dispute over property bordering
a river presents a question of fact pertaining to the precise
location of the ordinary high water mark); see also Railroad
Company v. Schurmeir, 74 US 272, 287, 19 L Ed 74 (1868)
(“In preparing the official plat from field-notes, the mean-
der-line is represented as the border-line of the streams,
and shows, to a demonstration, that the water-course, and
not the meander-line, as actually run on the land, is the
boundary.”). A meander line, like the one referenced in the
1960 judgment, is defined as follows:
   “[A] survey line demarcating the contours of a navigable
   body of water. Where a meander line of a water body is given
   as a boundary in a property description, the water itself,
   and not the meander line as shown on the government sur-
   vey, is the true boundary of the riparian proprietor.”
Coussens, 200 Or App at 172 n 5 (citation omitted). Thus, “a
grant to the meander line is presumed to be a grant to the
water.” Stott v. Stevens, 127 Or App 440, 445, 873 P2d 380,
rev den, 319 Or 274, cert den, 513 US 964 (1994). More pre-
cisely, a grant to the meander line is a grant to the ordinary
Cite as 330 Or App 449 (2024)                             461

high water line. Cawlfield v. Smyth, 69 Or 41, 45, 138 P 227
(1914) (“[T]he ordinary high-water mark constitutes the
true meander line.”). This presumption is consistent with
the “policy against construing conveyances so as to create
strips of land, the title to which would remain in abeyance
for lengthy periods.” Stott, 127 Or App at 445 (citing Nelson
v. Vandemarr, 281 Or 65, 70, 573 P2d 1232 (1978)).
         Precisely where “the water itself” is located may,
of course, move over time due to natural or artificial condi-
tions. “Accretion is a geological process by which new land
forms when sand, silt, or soil is gradually and imperceptibly
deposited on the edge of existing land.” Sea River Properties,
LLC, 355 Or at 841. When accretion occurs, the property
boundary moves with the water. Id. at 843. That rule pro-
motes efficiency. Id. at 844. Generally, an upland owner has
an interest in accessing water that borders their property,
and so “it is more efficient to grant title to the contiguous
landowner, who likely has the greatest interest in making
the gradual additions useful.” Id.
          Avulsion is “ ‘[t]he removal of a considerable quan-
tity of soil from the land of one man, and its deposit upon or
annexation to the land of another, suddenly and by the per-
ceptible action of water.’ ” State Land Board v. Sause et al,
217 Or 52, 79, 342 P2d 803 (1959) (quoting 2 Blackstone’s
Commentaries, 262). While avulsion refers to a sudden nat-
ural change caused by flooding or the like, artificial changes
such as those caused by dredging or filling are also treated
as avulsive events for legal purposes. Id. at 99 (holding that
“sudden artificial changes, such as dredging by the upland
owner, do not work a change in his boundary”). The doctrine
of avulsion aims to demarcate public and private ownership
by protecting state resources while also protecting private
property owners against unconstitutional takings. Sause,
217 Or at 102; Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel, 283 Or
147, 165, 582 P2d 1352 (1978). Specifically, “a riparian owner
cannot add to his property against the state by filling in the
area adjacent to his property,” but “[a]s long as [a riparian
owner] does not encroach on the rights of the state[,] * * *
he may make artificial changes in his bank which will not
destroy his title or affect his boundary.” Sause, 217 Or at 99,
462                       Dept. of Transportation v. Dietrich

102. However, an avulsive change to the course of a river
does not automatically transform private property into pub-
lic property. See Corvallis Sand & Gravel, 283 Or at 165,
167 (holding that when a sudden event, like rapid flooding,
converts an overflow channel located on private property
into the bed of the river itself, the new riverbed remains as
private property, noting that a rule to the contrary “would
raise serious questions about the taking of private property
for public use without compensation”). In sum, the rules of
accretion and avulsion are straightforward: “[I]f the change
be gradual, the boundary of the upland will follow the water;
if it be sudden, the boundary remains as before.” Sause, 217
Or at 80.
B.    The 1960 Eminent Domain Judgment
          We begin by reviewing the trial court’s construc-
tion of the 1960 judgment, as it provides essential context in
determining the boundaries of the 1975 deed. The question
is whether the boundary of the parcel acquired by the state
in 1960 moved with the Columbia River after the artificial
fill.
         As we have explained, the 1960 eminent domain
judgment was a grant to the water—that is, to the ordinary
high water line of the Columbia River as it existed at the
time. Thunderbird argues that the avulsive fill fixed the
northern boundary of the relevant parcel acquired by the
state in 1960 at the then-existing ordinary high water line.
Thunderbird is correct that the north boundary of the par-
cel acquired by the state in 1960 did not move. An avulsive
change to a water line has no effect on existing boundaries
or on title to the submerged or submersible land. Corvallis
Sand & Gravel, 283 Or at 167. The 1960 judgment, there-
fore, extended and conveyed the parcel of land to the ordi-
nary high water line of the Columbia River as it existed in
1960. The artificial fill was an avulsive event that effectively
moved the bank of the Columbia River north, and according
to the rule of avulsion, the boundary of the upland property
remains as it was before the avulsive event.
        The trial court was correct when it found that the
1960 judgment included property to “the water itself,” but it
Cite as 330 Or App 449 (2024)                             463

erred when it found that the 1960 judgment also conveyed
property to the relocated position of “the water” following
the fill. That error was nevertheless harmless. As a matter
of law, the previously submerged and submersible land in
question remained in state ownership after the artificial fill,
as discussed above. The state, thus, owned the land created
by the fill along with the adjacent and contiguous upland
parcels that it had acquired within the I-5 Right of Way.
As the trial court correctly noted, the 1960 judgment “did
not leave a strip of land between the meander line and the
water.” But that is because references to “the meander line”
and to “the water” were references to the same point—the
ordinary high water mark. See Oregon v. Portland Gen.
Elec. Co., 52 Or 502, 533, 98 P 160 (1908) (on rehearing)
(“[H]is title is not confined to the meander line, but extends
to the stream, and includes all of the upland, if any, between
the meander line and the line of ordinary high water.”). As
we will explain, the 1975 deed is what extends the western
boundary of the I-5 Right of Way—and the eastern bound-
ary of the property thus conveyed—in a straight line to the
new ordinary high water line as it existed in 1975.
C. The 1975 Deed
         We turn next to Thunderbird’s fourth, fifth, and
sixth assignments of error which, as we understand it, chal-
lenge the trial court’s construction of the 1975 deed. A legal
description of real property is ambiguous if it is suscepti-
ble to more than one plausible interpretation. See Esquire
Investments, Inc. v. Summers, 327 Or App 509, 517, 536 P3d
1081 (2023) (“Not only does plaintiffs’ reading of the * * *
deed result in textual anomalies, but an equally plausible—
and perhaps more persuasive—reading is possible.”); see
also Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or 358, 361-63, 937 P2d 1019
(1997) (finding a restrictive covenant ambiguous because
the text was susceptible to multiple interpretations).
         Here, the 1975 deed describes the eastern bound-
ary of the property conveyed as extending “thence N 22º
46’ 30” E, 560.0 feet along the Westerly right of way line
of Interstate 5 to the point of beginning.” It is not disputed
that the property line described does not align with the
west edge of the I-5 Right of Way. The course and distance
464                              Dept. of Transportation v. Dietrich

description, read literally, would result in a jog to the east of
the I-5 Right of Way by about 17 feet. But the 1975 deed also
includes a reference to “the Westerly right of way line of” I-5.
On the one hand, the deed might plausibly be read as fol-
lowing the course and distance description on the basis that
the I-5 Right of Way ends at the 1960 ordinary high-water
mark. The deed might also plausibly be read as continuing
the western boundary of the I-5 Right of Way to the new
ordinary high water line in 1975 because the text of the
1975 deed begins at a point specifically intersecting with
the west edge of the I-5 Right of Way and concludes with
a line that follows “along the Westerly right of way.” Given
two possible interpretations, both of which are plausible, the
1975 deed is ambiguous.
         We next look for the intent of the grantor, in this
case the state. We begin by noting that the state’s ownership
of contiguous parcels is relevant.7 At the time of the 1975
conveyance, both the disputed area and the adjacent 1960
parcel were owned by the state. The text of the 1975 deed
“bounds” the western border of the state’s property with the
south bank of the Columbia River and the I-5 Right of Way,
which strongly suggests that the state intended that the I-5
Right of Way continue in a straight line.
          To the extent that the state’s intent may be unclear,
the statutory rules of construction provide that ascertained
boundaries or monuments prevail over conflicting course and
distance descriptions. ORS 93.310(1) - (2); Bean v. Kmetic, 282
Or 739, 745, 580 P2d 1022 (1978). The I-5 bridge is an arti-
ficial object permanently fixed in land and the I-5 Right of
Way is a definite and objectively identifiable boundary that is
referenced in the 1975 legal description. The reference is not
“false” as Thunderbird argues—the I-5 Right of Way existed
at the time of the conveyance and there is no evidence of mis-
take in including the reference to it in the 1975 deed. Thus,
the I-5 Right of Way prevails over the conflicting course and
distance call. Although the trial court erred in finding that
    7
      Although not directly applicable to this case, common ownership and com-
mon use of contiguous parcels of land may establish “unity” of separate parcels,
which is relevant in certain contexts, such as when calculating just compensation
in eminent domain actions. See City of Salem v. H.S.B., 302 Or 648, 653, 733 P2d
890 (1987).
Cite as 330 Or App 449 (2024)                              465

the 1960 judgment itself transferred title to the state of the
disputed area, the court also based its decision on the text of
the 1975 deed and, in doing so, correctly concluded that the
state established an unbroken chain of ownership.
D. Remaining Assignments of Error
          We reject as inconsequential Thunderbird’s argu-
ments concerning the trial court’s findings about the legal
description of the boundary described in the 2004 deed. That
deed describes the western boundary as “55.91 feet, more or
less, to the intersection with the Westerly right of way of the
Interstate 5 Highway.” As Thunderbird acknowledges, its
own expert, Jansen, did not testify to the proper interpreta-
tion of the 2004 deed. The state’s expert, Fallert, did testify
on that subject, and he explained that following the exact
call of “55.91 feet,” which appears in no state records, would
cause the east boundary of Thunderbird’s parcel to protrude
approximately 28.5 feet beyond the I-5 Right of Way, which
would extend Thunderbird’s property farther beyond the I-5
Right of Way than even the 1975 deed, if it were construed
in Thunderbird’s favor.
           Fallert also testified that the phrase “more or less”
signifies an approximate measure. That is consistent with
our caselaw recognizing that a conveyance that includes
“more or less” in a distance call does not create ambiguity
in an otherwise clear property line, but rather “indicates
that the measurement may be approximate or inaccurate.”
Kraft v. Estate of John Ronald Cooper, Sr., 263 Or App 420,
425, 330 P3d 639 (2014); see also Weniger v. Ripley, 134 Or
265, 277, 293 P 425 (1930) (“[T]he qualifying words ‘more or
less,’ * * * mean ‘approximately,’ as distinguished from defi-
nite, precise, amounts.”). Moreover, the 2004 distance call,
if construed precisely as called, would convey more property
than Thunderbird’s predecessor purportedly owned, and a
grantor cannot convey more than they own. The trial court
did not err, on that record, in finding that the boundary
established in the 2004 deed aligned with the I-5 Right of
Way.
         Thunderbird’s remaining assignments of error rest
on the flawed premise that state agencies, rather than the
466                               Dept. of Transportation v. Dietrich

State of Oregon, own the disputed property. Specifically,
Thunderbird argues that the trial court erred in (1) sustain-
ing the state’s objection to a question posed to the state’s wit-
ness on cross-examination concerning ODOT’s ownership of
the filled land,8 and (2) rejecting its statute of frauds defense.
          These arguments are without merit. Owning prop-
erty “by and through” the Department of State Lands (DSL) or
ODOT, for example, simply means that the agency, as grantor
or grantee, acted in its capacity as agent for and on behalf of
its principal, the State of Oregon. Under ORS 270.020, “[t]itle
to any parcel of land held by a state agency shall be in the
name of the state, by and through the state agency controlling
the parcel.” Further, ORS chapter 270, which governs state
real property, repeatedly emphasizes that state agencies act
“for the state.” See, e.g., ORS 270.015(1) - (2) (providing that
the powers granted in various provisions of ORS chapter 270
are “vested in the State of Oregon” and that “the state shall
act by and through its duly constituted board, commission or
agency”); ORS 270.100(1)(a) (providing that “the state agency
acting for the state in the sales transaction” must report
the agency’s intent to sell real property in its control to the
Oregon Department of Administrative Services prior to the
sale); ORS 270.100(3) (“Before any terminal disposition of
real property[,] * * * the state agency acting for the state in the
transaction must secure approval of the transaction from the
Oregon Department of Administrative Services.”) (Emphasis
added); ORS 270.130 (providing that the “state agency acting
for the state” shall comply with certain notice and publication
requirements prior to a sale of real property).
        Thunderbird contends that because ORS 274.915(2)9
authorizes DSL to sell submerged or submersible lands,

      8
        Thunderbird’s counsel asked Fallert to clarify the statement in his opinion
letter that the meander line extended to the Columbia River after the artificial
fill. Fallert agreed with counsel that the new land was state property, but counsel
asked: “So—but that’s contrary to the admissions in this case that that filled land
belonged to [the Department of State Land] and not ODOT, correct?” The state
objected on the basis that the question misstates the law: “You know, the State of
Oregon is not splintered in its ownership. It acts by and through its agencies, but
the property is all in the State of Oregon.” The court sustained the objection.
      9
        ORS 274.915(2) provides, “[T]he [D]epartment [of State Lands] may sell,
lease or trade new lands created upon submersible or submerged lands owned by
the state * * *.”
Cite as 330 Or App 449 (2024)                              467

ODOT does not have a viable claim to the land absent a deed
conveying title to the agency. But the state’s ownership is not
fractured. ORS 274.005(8) provides that submersible land is
owned by the state “by virtue of her sovereignty.” ORS chap-
ter 274 delegates authority to DSL to manage submerged
and submersible land; however, the state retains title and
the right to convey or use those lands belongs to the state
through DSL. See ORS 274.025(1) (“The State of Oregon is
the owner of the submersible and submerged lands of such
streams and lakes, and may use and dispose of the same
as provided by law.”). The trial court properly concluded
that the state’s ownership of the disputed area has existed
since statehood and therefore, there is no need for a physi-
cal deed to establish title to that land. Thunderbird’s stat-
ute of frauds defense necessarily fails. Finally, Thunderbird
does not explain why the trial court’s decision to sustain the
state’s objection was harmful because as a matter of law, the
state’s ownership is not fractured.
                       IV. CONCLUSION
         The state did not acquire title to the land created
by the artificial fill by virtue of the 1960 eminent domain
judgment, and the trial court erred in concluding otherwise.
However, the state already owned the submerged and sub-
mersible land that was later filled, and because the fill did
not affect its ownership rights in that land, the trial court’s
error was harmless. The 1975 deed contains an ambiguity
regarding the eastern boundary of the land conveyed by
that deed, but the text of the deed strongly suggests that
the state intended to continue the I-5 Right of Way north in
a straight line, and in any case, under ORS 93.310(2), the
reference to the I-5 Right of Way controls over the conflicting
course and distance call. The distance call in the 2004 deed
is inexact and, therefore, of no consequence to our analysis.
Finally, we reject Thunderbird’s remaining assignments of
error because the state agencies hold land in the name of the
state. The state established that it has a substantial claim
to the disputed property and that its title is superior title to
that of defendant’s. On this record, the trial court did not err
in quieting title to the state.
        Affirmed.