Ethen Revocable Trust Agreement Dated October 17, 1996 v. River Resource Outfitters, LLC
2011 MT 143
| Mont. | 2011Background
- Ethens purchased Granite County property in July 2007; Neighbors border Ethens' property along Flint Creek.
- Mellens originally owned a 125-acre tract later subdivided, with boundary described as west bank of Flint Creek.
- Mellen-Cummins Deed and COS 162 described a boundary along the west bank; COS 521 retraced for Ethens’ parcel.
- COS 788 by Neighbors later fixed a boundary west of Flint Creek; Ethens acquired the tract before this survey.
- District Court held boundary to be a meandering line along Flint Creek, rejected fixed-west-of- creek boundary, and denied attorney-fee award to Ethens.
- This Court affirmed, ruling the boundary meanders along Flint Creek and that COS 788 is not controlling to defeat the meander boundary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court rely on extrinsic evidence to title? | Ethens contend deed language suffices; extrinsic evidence improper. | Neighbors argue extrinsic evidence supports fixed boundary. | No; court correctly used intrinsic deed language and surveys. |
| Does the boundary meander along Flint Creek or sit west of it? | Boundary described by Mellen-Cummins Deed and COS 521 as meandering along the creek. | Boundary is a fixed line west of Flint Creek as per COS 788. | Meanders along Flint Creek. |
| Was Ethens' declaratory-relief claim timely? | Ethens timely despite accrual date; COS 788 prompted action. | COS 788 begins limitations concerns; laches possible. | Timely filing. |
| Was there a need to join other landowners on Flint Creek? | Non-join would impede complete relief. | Non-joined landowners have no indispensable interest. | No abuse of discretion; non-joinder acceptable. |
| Did Neighbors acquire title by adverse possession or was attorney-fee denial proper? | Adverse possession failed; fees may be awarded to Ethens. | Adverse possession may apply; fee award justified by equitable considerations. | Adverse possession not proven; attorney-fee denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tester v. Tester, 300 Mont. 5 (2000 MT 130) (unambiguous deed requires no extrinsic intent evidence)
- Andersen v. Monforton, 125 P.3d 614 (2005 MT 310) (meander lines described by deeds and natural monuments; bind calls control survey data)
- Mont. Rail Link v. CUSA PRTS, LLC, 222 P.3d 1021 (2009 MT 432) (substantial evidence standard; fidelity to chain-of-title analysis)
- Mt. West Bank v. Mine & Mill Hydraulics, Inc., 64 P.3d 1048 (2003 MT 35) (abssence of indispensable party; discretionary joinder)
- Olson v. Jude, 73 P.3d 809 (2003 MT 186) (COSs become part of deed; retracements rely on prior deeds)
- Meadow Lake Estates Homeowners Assn. v. Shoemaker, 178 P.3d 81 (2008 MT 41) (open, notorious, exclusive possession elements for adverse possession)
- Buckley v. Laird, 493 P.2d 1070 (1972) (boundaries and course points control over isolated survey data)
- Bolinger v. Hollingsworth, 739 P.2d 962 (1987) (bound calls govern boundary interpretation)