Sacrison v. Evjene
2017 MT 170
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Dispute over the north–south boundary between the Sacrisons’ parcel (north/west) and Evjene’s parcel (south), arising from conflicting retracement surveys and historic occupation.
- Original 1954 Tripp Survey created Evjene’s parcel but contained measurement errors and did not call to a northern fence as a monument; Tripp relied on other monuments (Tobacco River, Tobacco Siding Road).
- A fence was reportedly erected around 1950 (pre-survey); Evjene’s family occupied to that fence, and Evjene rebuilt the fence in 2005 and built on his grandparents’ 1952 house site.
- Cordi Survey (for Evjene) retraced Tripp, used the fence as an artificial monument, and concluded the fence was the agreed northern boundary; Block Survey (for Sacrisons) concluded the fence should not be treated as a monument and placed a boundary line through Evjene’s house.
- Evjene obtained partial summary judgment declaring the fence an artificial monument and quieting title in his favor; Sacrisons appealed, arguing genuine material factual conflicts existed and that the fence was not established as a monument by admissible evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sacrison) | Defendant's Argument (Evjene) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper to declare the fence an artificial monument | Genuine disputes exist: the fence was not called in the Tripp Survey, Block Survey disputes use of fence, and evidence is insufficient/hearsay | Fence has been in same location since ~1950 and has been treated as the boundary by neighbors and retracement (Cordi); thus it is an artificial monument supporting boundary | Reversed: summary judgment improper because material facts are disputed and fence was not proven to be a monument as a matter of law |
| Whether a fence erected before survey can be a boundary monument absent survey/conformity evidence | Fence not called in legal description and no evidence it conformed to a surveyed line; may be only a division fence | Family and neighboring agreement (and Cordi Survey) show the fence marked the common boundary | Court held a pre-survey fence alone is insufficient; fence must be supported by testimony or parol evidence showing it was built on the correct original line |
| Admissibility of Evjene’s affidavit recounting family statements about 1950 fence | Affidavit contains hearsay and lacks personal knowledge; community reputation exception not satisfied by parties’ statements | Statements are within M. R. Evid. 803(20) (reputation in community regarding boundaries) and thus admissible | Court found affidavit contained hearsay and that party-supplied statements do not clearly meet the community-reputation exception; cannot resolve on summary judgment |
| Priority of calls in retracement surveys when monuments vs. measurements conflict | Higher-ranked calls (original lines) may not be reliable here; Block Survey relied on measurements showing overlap | Monuments (fence) should be given greater weight than measurements when reliable and agreed | Court reiterated call-priority rules but held that factual disputes about monument reliability preclude summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Larsen v. Richardson, 361 Mont. 344, 260 P.3d 103 (survey call priority and when lower-ranked call may prevail)
- Pilgrim v. Kuipers, 209 Mont. 177, 679 P.2d 787 (a fence is not a monument unless shown to conform to a surveyed or true line)
- Karlson v. Rosich, 334 Mont. 370, 147 P.3d 196 (retracement surveyor’s duty to follow original surveyor’s footsteps)
- Goodover v. Lindey’s, 232 Mont. 302, 757 P.2d 1290 (community reputation exception for boundary evidence)