Ash v. Merlette
2017 MT 305
Mont.2017Background
- Streeters owned ~43 acres around Parker Lake and in 1991 created Parcel A (5.66 acres, "Ash Property") and a 37.17-acre remainder (Merlette property) by COS 10404 and COS 10120. COS 10404 described the Ash lake boundary by metes-and-bounds from a point "on and along" the high-water mark for 577 feet more or less.
- Streeters conveyed the 37.17-acre remainder in 1992 to Bradshaw but expressly excluded Parcel A by reference to COS 10404; the Ash tract remained with Streeters and later passed to Brenda Ash in 2000 by a deed referencing COS 10404.
- In 2002 Merlette excavated and later disputed Ash’s placement of a dock, asserting ownership of land below the high-water mark around the lake; Ash sued in 2015 for declaratory relief and torts after continued interference.
- The district court issued a TRO and preliminary injunction protecting Ash’s lake access, then granted summary judgment holding Ash owns the land between the high- and low-water marks bordering her property; that order was certified for immediate appeal.
- The dispositive legal question was whether the metes-and-bounds description in COS 10404 and Ash’s deed fixed the boundary at the high-water mark or operated as a meander line subject to the statutory/common-law presumption that riparian conveyances extend at least to the low-water mark.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ash) | Defendant's Argument (Merlette) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the COS/deed boundary along Parker Lake fixed title at the high-water mark or served as a meander line | The COS/deed descriptions are meander-line descriptions and, under § 70-16-201 and precedent, convey at least to the low-water mark | The specific metes-and-bounds language running "on and along" the high-water mark limits the tract to the high-water line, so Merlette owns below high-water | The metes-and-bounds description is a meander line; the presumption that conveyances extend at least to the low-water mark governs, so Ash owns the land between high- and low-water marks |
| Whether extrinsic evidence was needed to construe the deed language | Not necessary; deed and COS are clear and unambiguous and should be construed on their face | Claimed extrinsic evidence could create a factual dispute requiring discovery | Court held the instruments are clear; extrinsic evidence not required to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether Bradshaw (and thus Merlette) ever obtained title below high-water on Ash parcel | Ash: Bradshaw’s deed expressly excluded the Ash parcel by reference to COS 10404, so Bradshaw never held the strip to convey | Merlette: impliedly asserted title to land below high-water around lake (fallback arguments relied on extrinsic evidence) | Court held Bradshaw never acquired the Ash strip; Merlette therefore could not have obtained title to it |
| Standard for construing riparian metes-and-bounds descriptions | Ash: Meander-line doctrine applies even without the word "meander"; riparian metes-and-bounds are approximations that do not cut off submerged land absent explicit reservation | Merlette: Specific metes-and-bounds along high-water should control and limit the conveyance | Court applied meander-line methodology: unless an instrument expressly reserves land below described line, meander-line descriptions do not defeat statutory presumption extending title at least to low-water |
Key Cases Cited
- PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana, 565 U.S. 576 (discusses state title to beds of navigable waters under the equal-footing doctrine)
- Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (state ownership of beds and banks of navigable waters at statehood)
- United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pac. R.R. Co., 312 U.S. 592 (federal authority over navigable waters between high-water marks)
- Mitchell v. Smale, 140 U.S. 406 (meander lines indicate water is the boundary; riparian consequences)
- Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U.S. 371 (meander-line principles in government surveys)
- St. Paul & Pac. R.R. Co. v. Schurmeir, 74 U.S. 272 (meander lines in public-land surveys are not fixed boundaries)
- Monforton v. Andersen, 329 Mont. 460, 125 P.3d 614 (Mont. 2005) (applies meander-line doctrine to private deeds and holds metes-and-bounds along a river do not alone fix boundary at high-water)
- Faucett v. Dewey Lumber Co., 82 Mont. 250, 266 P. 646 (1928) (meander-line doctrine in Montana law)