Cedar Lane Ranch, Inc. v. Lundberg
| Decision Date | 06 December 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-485.,98-485. |
| Citation | 1999 MT 299,991 P.2d 440 |
| Parties | CEDAR LANE RANCH, INC., A Montana Corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Wilford W. LUNDBERG and Heber Lundberg and their heirs; Carl Nelson, his heirs and assigns, Carl Nelson Ranch Company and all persons, unknown, claiming or who might claim any right, title, estate, or interest in or lien or encumbrance upon the real property described in the complaint adverse to plaintiff's ownership or any cloud upon plaintiff's title thereto, whether such a claim or possible claim be present or contingent, Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Douglas J. DiRe, Dayton Law Firm, Anaconda, Montana, For Appellants.
Nancy K. Moe, Harold V. Dye, Dye & Moe, Missoula, Montana, For Respondent.
¶ 1 Cedar Lane Ranch, Inc. (Cedar Lane Ranch), brought an action to quiet title to the following parcel of disputed property lying in Granite County:
All of that portion of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE ¼ NE ¼) of Section 26, Township 10 North, Range 13 West, M.P.M., Granite County, Montana lying West of Montana Highway 1 running between Drummond and Anaconda, Montana.
¶ 2 Carl Nelson Ranch Company (Carl Nelson Ranch) appeals from the order of the Third Judicial District Court, Granite County, granting summary judgment to Cedar Lane Ranch and quieting title to the disputed property. We affirm.
¶ 3 Prior to 1994, both the Cedar Lane Ranch and the Carl Nelson Ranch believed that only seven of the forty acres in the NE ¼ NE ¼ of Section 26 were located on the west side of Montana Highway 1 and owned by the Cedar Lane Ranch; both ranches also believed that the remaining thirty-three acres in the NE ¼ NE ¼ of Section 26 were located east of the highway and owned by the Carl Nelson Ranch. However, pursuant to a right-of-way survey performed by the Montana Department of Highways in 1994, it was discovered that "more than seven acres and as many as thirteen acres" of the NE ¼ NE ¼ of Section 26 may in fact be located on the west side of Montana Highway 1. The disputed property in this quiet title action is that portion of the NE ¼ NE ¼ of Section 26 in excess of seven acres lying west of Montana Highway 1. ¶ 4 In its quiet title action, Cedar Lane Ranch named as defendants Wilford and Heber Lundberg, title holders of record to the disputed property and predecessors in interest to the Cedar Lane Ranch, and Carl Nelson and the Carl Nelson Ranch. Although the Lundbergs were served notice by publication, they failed to appear and default judgment was entered against them. However, Carl Nelson Ranch appeared at the quiet title action and, based upon the results of the 1994 highway survey, asserted a counterclaim to an indeterminate six acres in the disputed property. Cedar Lane Ranch subsequently moved for summary judgment on the complaint and the counterclaim, and its motion was granted by the District Court.
¶ 5 There are essentially two issues on appeal, restated as follows:
¶ 6 (1.) Did the District Court err in concluding that the disputed property was transferred in gross and, therefore, that the actual acreage of the conveyance was immaterial?
¶ 7 (2.) Did the District Court err in alternatively concluding that summary judgment was proper because Cedar Lane Ranch holds title to the disputed property by adverse possession?
¶ 8 In 1892, Albert Tinklepaugh (Tinklepaugh), the common predecessor in interest, obtained a patent to the lands that today comprise both the Cedar Lane Ranch and the Carl Nelson Ranch. Since the time of Tinklepaughs first conveyance, a common boundary existed between the two ranches in the form of a county road that is today Montana Highway 1; the Cedar Lane Ranch lies to the west of the highway, and the Carl Nelson Ranch to the east.
¶ 9 In 1902, Tinklepaugh deeded a parcel of land to James McGowan, a predecessor in interest to the Cedar Lane Ranch. This parcel of land was bounded by a county road (now Montana Highway 1) to the east, and was bounded by section lines to the north, south, and west. By deed, Tinklepaugh described the conveyed land as follows: "About seven acres of land off of the west side of the N.E. ¼ N.E. ¼ of Sec. 26 Township 10 N. Range 13 West. Said piece of land being west of the foot of the hill, where county road now runs." This parcel has never been severed by sale or otherwise from the holdings of the Cedar Lane Ranch, and has been fenced-in and continuously "ranched" since the 1950s.
¶ 10 In 1916, Tinklepaugh conveyed his land on the east side of the county road to Carl Nelson, purportedly including all of Tinklepaugh's remaining ownership in the NE ¼ NE ¼ of Section 26. The deed described this conveyance as follows:
The Northwest quarter (NW ¼) of Section Twenty-five (25), the North-east quarter (NE ¼) of the North-east quarter (NE ¼) of Section Twenty-six (26) except that portion of approximately seven (7) acres off of the west side, all lying on the west side of the public highway, and about seven (7) acres of land off of the east side of the South-east quarter (SE ¼) of the South-east quarter (SE ¼) of Section Twenty-three (23) all in Township Ten (10) North, Range Thirteen (13) West of Montana, Meridian, Montana, containing Two Hundred Acres, more or less. [Emphasis added.]
¶ 11 In 1944, McGowans heirs sold what is today the entire Cedar Lane Ranch, including the disputed property, to the Lundbergs. Although the disputed property has never been severed from the holdings of the Cedar Lane Ranch, the legal description of the disputed property was inadvertently omitted from the chain of title beginning in 1950. In 1950, the Lundbergs contracted with Woodrow and Billie Wallace to sell the land that today comprises the Cedar Lane Ranch; the legal description of the disputed property was omitted from that agreement. The contract was paid in 1958, at which time the Lundbergs conveyed the ranch by warranty deed to the Wallaces; that deed also omitted the legal description of the disputed property. In 1972, the Wallaces conveyed the land by warranty deed to the Cedar Lane Ranch, again omitting the legal description of the disputed property. These oversights were not discovered until the 1994 highway survey indicated the acreage discrepancies in Tinklepaughs transfers. ¶ 12 In 1964, Carl Nelson deeded his land to the Carl Nelson Ranch. The legal description in the warranty deed purported to convey the following parcel: "Section 26: NE ¼ NE ¼ except that portion of approximately 7 acres off of west side, all lying on the west side of the public highway."
¶ 13 The District Court quieted title to the disputed acreage in the Cedar Lane Ranch. In quieting title, the court ruled that: (1) the Carl Nelson Ranch did not possess any title interest in the disputed property since the parcel west of the highway had been transferred to the Cedar Lane Ranch "in gross" and, therefore, that the parties had assumed any risk of an acreage variance; and that (2) even if the Carl Nelson Ranch had a title interest in the disputed property, the Cedar Lane Ranch had obtained title to that parcel through adverse possession.
¶ 14 (1.) Did the District Court err in concluding that the disputed property was transferred in gross and, therefore, that the actual acreage of the conveyance was immaterial?
¶ 15 We review a district court's entry of summary judgment de novo. Motarie v. Northern Mont. Joint Refuse Disposal Dist. (1995), 274 Mont. 239, 242, 907 P.2d 154, 156
; Mead v. M.S.B., Inc. (1994), 264 Mont. 465, 470, 872 P.2d 782, 785. When we review a district court's award of summary judgment, we apply the same analysis as the district court based upon Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P. See Bruner v. Yellowstone County (1995), 272 Mont. 261, 264, 900 P.2d 901, 903.
¶ 16 In its order, the District Court reasoned as follows:
¶ 17 Carl Nelson Ranch disputes the District Court's conclusion that "[a]n inaccurate estimation of the size of the parcel is not a genuine issue of material fact." The court's conclusion was premised on the fact that Tinklepaugh had conveyed what is now the disputed property "after identifying the area by boundaries, being the foot of the hill and the county road." In opposition to Cedar Lane Ranch's motion for summary judgment, Carl Nelson Ranch introduced two affidavits indicating that both ranches had believed, prior to the 1994 highway survey, that the Cedar Lane Ranch owned only seven acres of the NE ¼ NE ¼ of Section 26. Carl Nelson Ranch thus contends that genuine issues of material fact exist as to the size of the disputed property.
¶ 18 In response, Cedar Lane Ranch argues that the liberal use of "words of estimation" in the relevant conveyances strongly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rich v. Ellingson
...we review an award of summary judgment, we apply the same analysis as the district court based upon Mont. R. Civ. P. 56. Cedar Lane Ranch, Inc. v. Lundberg, 1999 MT 299, ¶ 15, 297 Mont. 145, ¶ 15, 991 P.2d 440, ¶ 15. The moving party must establish the absence of a genuine issue of material......
-
Pryor v. Musch, 2009 MT 50N (Mont. 2/24/2009), DA 08-0191
...¶ 6 We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo under the same requirements of M. R. Civ. P. 56, Cedar Lane Ranch v. Lundberg, 1999 MT 299, ¶ 15, 297 Mont. 145, 991 P.2d ¶ 7 In the proceedings below all parties admitted the existence of the 2002 Memo, but James attempte......