453 P.3d 178
Alaska2019Background
- Adjoining Colt Island lots: Collinses (Lot 14) and Halls (Lot 15). Both deeds reference Plat 75-11 and U.S. Survey No. 1755 (1927 federal survey).
- 1927 U.S. Survey 1755 established Meander Corner 1 and a nearby witness corner (WCMC1); Plat 75-11 was a paper plat that referred to U.S. Survey 1755 and did not monument corners itself.
- In the 1970s surveyor John Bean used a different rock (a faint “X”) as his point of beginning and placed temporary control points; Bean later marked lot corners (2009) and recorded plats (2014–15) reflecting those lines.
- In 2012 R&M (surveyor Johnson) located a vertically inscribed rock reading “WCMC1 S1755” consistent with Dahlquist’s 1927 notes and recorded Plat 2012-32, which shifted Lot 15’s boundary roughly 20 feet from Bean’s line; under Plat 2012-32 the Halls’ shop and outhouse sit inside Lot 15.
- Superior Court credited R&M’s monument as the true WCMC1, quieted title for the Halls according to Plat 2012-32, and found the subdivision covenants (20-foot setback; chemical holding tanks) abandoned. The court made no findings on a separate claim that David Hall physically trespassed in June 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Collins) | Defendant's Argument (Halls) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper boundary / point of beginning | Bean’s original 1970s survey and monuments (as used in Plat 75-11 / Bean plats) govern; deeds referencing Plat 75-11 adopt Bean’s lines. | Deeds reference U.S. Survey 1755; R&M found Dahlquist’s WCMC1 and Plat 2012-32 correctly locates lots. | Court adopted Plat 2012-32; R&M’s inscribed rock is WCMC1 and controls the point of beginning. |
| Do Bean’s 1970s markers control future surveys | Bean set and others relied on his markers; original subdivision lines established via practical use. | Bean’s markers were temporary control points, not monumented or recorded for future surveys. | Court found Bean’s 1970s markers insufficient to control later surveys. |
| Boundary by acquiescence | Longstanding use of Totem Pole Trail, cabins, and apparent markers show mutual acceptance of Bean’s line. | No mutual recognition or seven-year period of acquiescence to Bean’s 2009 line; Halls did not accept Bean’s markers. | Court held Collinses failed to prove boundary by acquiescence. |
| Covenants enforcement / abandonment | Covenants (20-ft setback, chemical toilets) remain enforceable; Halls violate them. | Many island owners long violated covenants; enforcement was not pursued—covenants effectively abandoned. | Court found widespread noncompliance and abandoned covenants; refused to enforce them against Halls. |
| Separate physical trespass (June 2013) | Independent trespass by David Hall (outside boundary dispute) — at least nominal damages. | Contested; court record lacks findings on this specific act. | Appellate court remanded for findings on the June 2013 physical trespass claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. Konrad, 337 P.3d 510 (Alaska 2014) (adopted three‑part test for boundary by acquiescence)
- Diehl v. Zanger, 39 Mich. 601 (Mich. 1878) (Cooley concurrence advocating original monuments/practical location rule)
- Estate of Smith v. Spinelli, 216 P.3d 524 (Alaska 2009) (deed‑interpretation rules; "four corners" analysis)
- Kalenka v. Taylor, 896 P.2d 222 (Alaska 1995) (covenants may be deemed abandoned after substantial, general noncompliance)
- Beecher v. City of Cordova, 408 P.3d 1208 (Alaska 2018) (treatment of equitable estoppel and adverse possession principles)
- Reeves v. Godspeed Props., LLC, 426 P.3d 845 (Alaska 2018) (treatment of deed/plat ambiguities and evidentiary approach to surveying disputes)