*1 upon request, may a party or the court’s rely interpre- simply subjective its prove
tation of a contract term order to ambiguous vague. the term is or In- that stead, placed extrinsic evidence is before to determine whether for it subject
the contract and its terms divergent objective inter- various but pretations. procedure has say,
Needless that place in just been outlined never took Instead, judge improperly trial case. ambiguity jury. the issue left ignores consequences majority in- jury this and finds that the еrroneous de- stating struction Court has “[t]he Agreement termined that the terms of most a could be unclear” was at harmless error, so but nevertheless remands the case judge may determine whether noted should reformed. As contract above, showing required H-K for bаsically amounts to a determi- reformation trial, court, post nation whether ambiguous. standing contract alone is So, principle was an- while correct (without support- nounced in one sentence ing authority) majority, applica- by the its future,
tion was not carried out. litigants those trial courts and before both disposition press courts should preliminary issues. all RE VALLEY SHAMROCK SUN SOURCES, INC., corporation, an Idaho Gunderson, Nancy Plaintiffs-Ap
pellants, LEASING CORPORA
TRAVELERS TION, corporation, Defendant-Respondent. 17662.
No. Supreme Idaho. Court July
ty upon building The which a was located. appeal requires before us our review defen- district court’s determination that Leasing Corporation dant was Travelers plaintiffs not removal of liable to the for building parties alleged which respective property. situated on their We affirm.
I. Proceedings Background
Factual dispute The in this case around centers parcel the location of a of real estate parcel” known as “Bowman and wheth- (hereafter dwelling er “duplex”) a two-unit parcel. located on interpretation plain- issue is the of what tiffs-appellants, Valley Sun Re- Shamrock (hereafter Nancy sources and Gunderson “Shamrock”) legal ambiguous assert is an description in the deed. parcel
The in 1960 was created larger out of parcel owned a common grantor, R'.B. Randall. 1960 аnd Between parcel the Bowman was transferred times, eight including different the transfer plaintiff in Until appraisals placed various surveys duplex legal parcel.1 on the Bowman The description consistently convey- used in the ances, deed, including the sheriff’s is the following: SW'ASE'A,
A portion Section described as follows: at BEGINNING 27; comer of Southeast said Section feet; THENCE North 1322 THENCE N. 47’W., feet; THENCE S. 50 Crist, Roger Ketchum, plaintiffs- E. 14'W., along Northerly 758.5 feet appellants. line Clarendon Hot Roark, Hailey, R. Keith for defendant-re- Road; 46'W., THENCE N. spondеnt. point beginning; 100 feet real 46'W., feet; THENCE N. 39 THENCE BOYLE, 14'E., feet; Justice. N. 50 THENCE S. 39 46'E., feet; 14'W., THENCE S. 50 In property boundary dispute (Em- point feet beginning. to the real which damages sought, arewe called phasis added.) sup- to determine whether record ports finding trial court’s location defendаnt-respondent, Trav- proper- Corporation (hereafter of the boundaries of real Leasing elers “Trav- surveyor 1. The surveyor record demonstrates that The trial court record reveals that the surveyed hired ty predecessor advised Shamrоck’s in interest of early as and discovered that this information. duplex was not located on the Bowman elers”) purchased surrounding the land elers asserts it is liable for destruction at a sheriff’s The duplex. sale. or removal of the sheriff’s deed from which Travelеrs claim ruled in of Travel- favor adjacent property excepted title five *3 concluding language that the ers parcels part smaller which were not of the a description in the did not refer to underlying foreclosure action. One of languаge referring monument and held the excepted parcels thought these to be the northerly boundary line of Clar- 1986, parcel. the In Travelers requi- Springs endon Hot Road lacked the hired to the surveyor a locate and stake designation visibility necessаry the site excepted parcels. surveyor followed a to monument. Based on the call a the 1391 feet in call distance of the second the trial presented, facts and evidence description of the contained in the deed and no conflict court concluded that there was rejected language he the other because the call to course and distance and between “northerly boundary could not the locate a The trial court the call to monument. Springs line of thе Hot Road” Clarendon duplex the property held that the on which he de- appropriate with what felt was an belonged pursuant located to Travelers result, gree survey- certainty. of As a the not to the sheriff’s deed and Travelers was duplex or thаt the was located determined This liable to Shamrock for its removal. property on and on of Travelers’ not one appeal followed. excepted Relying upon parcels. the duplex survey, Travelers bulldozed the building. the
burned the remnants of II. 1986, September In was filed this action Scope Review Judicial of against seeking by Shamrock Travelers appellate In an review of a trial of damages wrongful for the destruction always keep court decision we must on duplex allegedly the whiсh was situated respective assigned to the mind the roles by the Bowman and owned Sham- fact, of trial level the trier courts. pled attempt- rock. nor Shamrock neither judge, court is the in this case the district possession prove ed to or adverse conflicting v. evidence. Rankin arbiter Instead, by acquiescence. Shamrock 621, Rankin, P.2d 1236 107 Idaho along language “758.5 feet claimed (1984). province It is of the trier northerly boundary line of the Claren- weigh conflicting and testi Road,” fact to evidence Springs don Hot is a reference to credibility of mony judge to a “mon- to wit landmark and is therefore call 52(a); v. Shamrock asserts that call Pointner John ument.” nesses. I.R.C.P. 1014, (1985); son, a monument with the distance call conflicts Idaho 695 P.2d feet”, 109, of “1391 and that the call to Gotzinger, v. 106 Idaho Glenn the conflict- monument should control over (1984); Westberg, Jensen v. ing call. Shamrock course of distance In (Ct.App.1988). Idaho 772 P.2d of monument call is the claims that use role, findings the trial court’s of this view interpretation proper con- in favor liberally be construed of fаct will places the description in the tained State, v. judgment entered. Rueth property. on destroyed duplex its (1982); P.2d 1333 Jensen 103 Idaho Bledsoe, P.2d 988 100 Idaho v. argues the reference (1979). findings Trial and conclu court’s northerly boundary along feet “758.5 on substantial al are bаsed sions which Springs is line of the Clarendon Hot Road” conflicting dis though evidence will is not a to a monument and that there credibility appeal. The turbed on the “1391 no conflict between this call and prov in the weight given is to be evidence description. Trav- fеet” course of distance fact, findings and the ince of the trier read that these calls can be elers contends judge not be set aside so, by made the trial will clearly together and done situate when clearly erroneous. Pointner and not unless duplеx property on Travelers’ Johnson, Accordingly, Trav- on
H9
(1985);
northerly boundary
surveyors,
MacNeil v. Minidoka Memorial
located the
588, 701
line of the Clarendon Hot
Road
Hosp., 108 Idaho
varying
the Bowman
locations
guiding principles
It is
these
in mind
with
description
depending
оr method
that we undertake
the in-
our review of
surveyor
called
utilized. One
appeal.
stant
argued
interpreted
deed in the manner
However,
Shamrock.
III.
Williams,
witness,
acknowledged
Gordon
Construction
Deeds
Of
actually surveyed
that he never
construing
deеd, physical
ty
placement
and testified that his
*4
existing upon
ground
features
the
and re
parcel
placement
and the
that
of
description
Zimmerman,
in
ferred to
the
be con parcel by
must
the defen-
Dennis
Weisbrod,
Campbell
surveyor,
by
sidered.
was
the
v.
73 Idahо
dant’s
determined
82,
(1952). Monuments,
interpreted
245
1052
manner in
each
the lan-
P.2d
nat
which
artificial,
guage
referring
in
call
contained
the third
ural or
or lines
on
marked
“along
northerly boundary
the
ground,
to
the
of
control over calls for courses and
Springs
Hot
Road.”
Clarеndon
Williams
89,
distances.
Id. at
245
at
P.2d
regard
in
no
admitted
that there was
Brown,
1027,
Farrell
111 Idaho
729
v.
P.2d
description
in
the
(Ct.App.1986).
1090
which directs that the course of the second
fixed
A
monument or marker is
point
is
inter-
call
to be followed to the
of
conflicting
controlling over a
course
call to
northerly boundary
section
line of
with the
distance,
nature,
if
permanent
and
it is
aof
Springs
Except
the Clarendon Hot
Road.
Hansen,
303,
Scott
18
v.
Utah 2d
422 P.2d
for his
use of and reliance on the
(1966)
525
and established with “reasonable
language referеncing
Hot
the Clarendon
certainty.” W.T. Carter &
v.
Bros.
Col
Road,
Springs
his
Williams testified that
lins,
316,
(Tex.1916);
192 S.W.
321
Barker
parcel
location of the Bowman
would have
Co.,
52,
v. Houssiere-Latreille Oil
La.
160
by
the
found
been
same
that
Zimmer-
legal description
§
except
appeal does no more than
as the Bowman
if an
same
awardable
rеferring
appellate
it did not contain a call
court to second-
simply
an
invite
Zimmerman
Hot
Road.
conflicting
Clarendon
evi-
guess the trial court
and dis-
the call to course
concluded that
Edwards, 113 Idaho
dence. Johnson
and concluded that
tance was more definite
(1987);
v. Weiser
findings are in the record. competent evidence IV. Appeal Attorney Fees on an award of at requests pursuant to I.A.R. torney appeal fees