339 P.3d 749
Idaho2014Background
- Harry and Edith Clark conveyed two adjoining parcels to their daughter Jean Coleman in 1966 and 1970; those are the "Coleman Property."
- A separate parcel to the south was later conveyed (eventually to Timothy and Carol Baker) and is the "Baker Property."
- The 1966 and 1970 deeds contain an ambiguous point of beginning tied to the Pack River Road (Highway 130), creating uncertainty in the southern boundary of the 1970 parcel.
- In 1971 Clifford Johnson erected a fence near the parties’ common boundary to contain horses; plaintiffs later treated that fence as the boundary.
- Plaintiffs sought a judicial boundary determination, claiming the fence reflected the Clarks’ intent or a boundary by agreement/acquiescence; the district court found the deeds ambiguous, construed them to align the 1970 southern boundary with the fence, but found no boundary-by-agreement.
- On appeal the Idaho Supreme Court reversed the deed construction (holding the court improperly changed deed calls) and affirmed the district court’s finding that the fence did not create a binding boundary by agreement; the case was remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the court’s alternative order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper construction of the 1966 and 1970 deeds (point of beginning and southern boundary) | Deeds ambiguous; Clarks intended the 1970 southern boundary to be at the 1971 fence (per Coleman testimony and circumstances) | Deed calls and recording priorities control; cannot rewrite deed calls to conform to fence | Reversed: trial court improperly changed deed calls (rotated courses) to match fence; deeds must be given their recorded calls and cannot be reoriented to deprive subsequent grantees of recorded acreage |
| Whether the fence established a boundary by agreement/acquiescence | Long possession and acquiescence, plus surrounding circumstances, support an implied agreement that fence marked boundary | Fence was erected merely to contain horses and not intended as a boundary; no corroborating agreement | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports district court finding no boundary by agreement; fence purpose was containment, so acquiescence did not compel inference of agreement |
| Effect of recording statutes on competing claims | Plaintiffs argued intent and post-deed conduct can control despite recorded descriptions | Defendants argued recorded deeds provide constructive notice and priority to subsequent purchasers | Court emphasized recording statutes — recorded 1970 deed predated Johnson/Johnson successors, so recorded descriptions control absent proper deed language |
| Standard of review of trial court’s factual findings | Plaintiffs sought de novo re-evaluation of credibility and inferences | Defendants urged appellate deference to factual findings | Court applied deferential clear-error review and refused to reweigh credibility; affirmed boundary-by-agreement finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Camp v. East Fork Ditch Co., Ltd., 137 Idaho 850 (appellate review: findings of fact not set aside unless clearly erroneous)
- Miller v. Callear, 140 Idaho 213 (physical features referred to in a deed must be considered in construction)
- Sun Valley Shamrock Res., Inc. v. Travelers Leasing Corp., 118 Idaho 116 (give effect to all language in a deed description)
- Luce v. Marble, 142 Idaho 264 (elements of boundary by agreement/acquiescence)
- Cox v. Clanton, 137 Idaho 492 (fence erected to contain livestock not evidence of an agreement establishing boundary)
- Griffel v. Reynolds, 136 Idaho 397 (long acquiescence may permit inference of agreement but is not standalone proof)
- Downey v. Vavold, 144 Idaho 592 (acquiescence is evidence of agreement; trial court not required to infer agreement)
- Phillips v. Erhart, 151 Idaho 100 (appellate court will not substitute its view for trier of fact on credibility and weight of evidence)