Henry v. Borushko, 281 P.3d 729

Henrys and Borushkos own adjoining land separated by an irrigation canal; boundary dispute centers on whether boundary is canal centerline or north bank fence.
Deed from Henrys to Mortensens (1977) and later Mortensens to Borushkos (1995) describe land north of Pavillion Main Lateral; actual boundary location contested.
District court issued bench-trial ruling in favor of Borushkos, interpreting boundary at canal centerline per presumption for non-navigable waterways/streets.
Appellate review limited by record deficiencies; Wyoming standard requires de novo review of legal conclusions but factual findings are presumptively correct absent clearly erroneous evidence.
Trial court treated canal as a substantial man-made monument with attributes of non-navigable stream and street, applying presumption that boundary is at the thread/center of the canal.
Court affirmed, holding recitation of acreage in deed does not rebut the presumption that boundary runs along canal centerline; fees for appeal declined.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Boundary interpretation of the deed as canal centerline vs north bank	Henrys argue boundary at north bank/ fence.	Borushkos argue boundary at canal centerline.	Boundary set at canal centerline; presumption unrebutted.
Effect of acreage recitation on boundary interpretation	Acreage of 40.1 acres supports boundary at north bank.	Acreage language is an estimate; not controlling.	Acreage recitation does not rebut presumption; centerline governs.
Whether deed fails to specify bank to defeat presumption	Deed does not state boundary on north bank.	Lacks express reservation/edge language; presumption applies.	Presumption applies; no express contrary intent shown.
Whether appellate fees should be awarded for lack of reasonable cause	Appeal lacked reasonable basis due to acreage issues.	Appeal not unreasonable; no fee award.	No attorney's fees awarded.

Wilson v. Lucerne Canal and Power Co., 150 P.3d 653 (Wy. 2007) (non-navigable watercourses/roads as boundary default to centerline)
Glover v. Giraldo, 824 P.2d 552 (Wyo. 1992) (presumption to center of stream unless boundary expressly reserved)
Rouse v. Munroe, 658 P.2d 74 (Wy. 1983) (accompanying acreage recitations treated as estimations not controlling)
Faulks v. Schrider, 99 F.2d 370 (D.C.Cir.1938) (centerline principle for land bordering roads/streets)
Painovich v. Painovich, 216 P.3d 501 (Wy. 2009) (record sufficiency in reviewing bench findings)
Shaffer v. WINhealth Partners, 261 P.3d 708 (Wy. 2011) (objective interpretation governs contract terms)