Larsen v. Richardson
260 P.3d 103
Mont.2011Background
- Larsens sue to quiet title to a 26.96-acre parcel (Parcel 1) northwest of Missoula; Richardsons claim a 9.74-acre northern portion and an easement by prescription over it.
- Deeds tracing boundary lines describe a jog in a fence near Section 13’s midsection; parties dispute whether the jog runs from Point F to E or from B to A, affecting ownership.
- Weatherly (Larsens’ surveyor) concludes the jog is F–E, placing the 9.74 acres on the Larsens; Milam (Richardsons’ surveyor) contends the jog is B–A, giving the Richardsons the land.
- The district court found the Larsens own the 9.74 acres and rejected the prescriptive easement, relying on Weatherly’s analysis and deed language; Milam’s method was deemed unreliable.
- Richardsons argued use of corrals and access over the area since 1940s/1950s constituted a prescriptive easement; the district court found the use permissive and neighborly, not adverse.
- The court awarded some costs but denied the Larsens’ attorney’s fees; it held a separate issue on costs—the need for additional maps/surveys—was appropriate for remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court err in the Larsens’ ownership of the disputed 9.74 acres? | Larsens | Richardsons | Larsens ownership affirmed |
| Did the district court err in finding no prescriptive easement for the Richardsons? | Richardsons | Larsens | Richardsons prescriptive easement not proven |
| Did the district court err in denying the Larsens' attorney's fees under § 25-7-105, MCA? | Larsens | Richardsons | Denial affirmed |
| Did the district court err in denying certain costs under § 25-10-201(8), MCA? | Larsens | Richardsons | Remand for costs related to supplemental maps/surveys; partial reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Pilgrim v. Kuipers, 209 Mont. 177, 679 P.2d 787 (Mont. 1984) (distinguishes boundary fences that establish lines from mere division fences)
- McAlpin v. Smith, 123 Mont. 391, 213 P.2d 602 (Mont. 1950) (quieting title requires success on own title, not weakness of adversary's)
- Heller v. Gremaux, 311 Mont. 178, 53 P.3d 1259 (Mont. 2002) (prescriptive rights require adverse use unless neighborly accommodations prove permissive use)
- Leichtfuss v. Dabney, 329 Mont. 129, 122 P.3d 1220 (Mont. 2005) (prescriptive period and elements; burden shifts upon adverse use)
- Amerimont, Inc. v. Gannett, 278 Mont. 314, 924 P.2d 1326 (Mont. 1996) (owner should not lose title without notice; permissive use doctrines)
- Kessinger v. Matulevich, 278 Mont. 450, 925 P.2d 864 (Mont. 1996) (neighborly accommodation and permissive use considered in prescriptive analyses)
- Tomlin Enters. v. Althoff, 2004 MT 383, 325 Mont. 99, 103 P.3d 1069 (Mont. 2004) (boundary and boundary-location principles in Montana)
- Pilgrim v. Kuipers, 209 Mont. 177, 679 P.2d 787 (Mont. 1984) (boundary construction; priority of calls and monuments considerations)