State Com'rs of Bd. of Public Lands v. Thiel
| Decision Date | 07 February 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-804,75-804 |
| Citation | 82 Wis.2d 276,262 N.W.2d 522 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin COMMISSIONERS OF the BOARD OF PUBLIC LANDS, Appellant, v. John THIEL, Jr., and June Thiel, his wife, William Trachte and Elizabeth Trachte, his wife, Robert Cook, Ardell Harm and Georgia Harm, his wife, Catherine Newman, Edward Walkowski and Elsie Walkowski, his wife, Arthur Cook, Prescott Cook, Paul Cook, Ben Schroeder, Robert W. Schroeder, Harry Walkowski and Sylvia Walkowski, his wife, Joseph Miller and Margaret Miller, his wife, Respondents. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from a judgment in an action to quiet title to certain lake front real estate in Oneida county. The controversy concerns land affected by the erroneous depiction of the shoreline of a meandered lake on the original plat of survey.
The action was commenced October 29, 1974, by the plaintiff-appellant, the Commissioners of the Board of Public Lands (hereafter the state), claiming title to the contested land on behalf of the state. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the several defendants-respondents, owners of land adjacent to the disputed parcel, on the ground that boundaries involving meandered bodies of water are determined by the actual shoreline and not by the meander lines. The state appeals from this judgment.
Patrick Walsh, Asst. Atty. Gen. (argued), for appellant; Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., and John E. Kofron, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief.
Forest W. Rodd, Rhinelander (argued), for respondents; James A. Johnson and Korth, Rodd, Sommer & Mouw, S. C., Rhinelander, on the brief.
We refer to two diagrams in setting forth the facts. Figure 1 depicts the area in question as shown by the original plat of survey, apparently done in 1864. The State of Wisconsin holds title to Government Lot No. 2 in Section 21 of Township 36 North, Range 8 East. This area is indicated by hatched lines on Figure 1. The defendants hold title to the area indicated in dots, which will be referred to as Lot No. 8. 1 The defendants, 12 in number, are owners of parcels of land in Government Lot 8 and fronting on Lake Emma. They and their predecessors in title have owned and occupied the properties for many years. The pleadings allege the improvements on the respective properties have a total value of approximately $300,000.
Lot 2 and Lot 8 border on a meandered body of water known as Lake Emma. The actual shoreline of Lake Emma, shown in Figure 2 below, and established by a 1939 survey, differs substantially from the meanders shown on the original official plat of survey. (Figure 1) As indicated by Figure 2, the lake extends farther to the north and east than depicted in the original survey.
(See following illustration.)
As a result of this discrepancy, most of the area platted as Lot 2 is beneath the waters of Lake Emma. Two small triangular portions of the original lot remain above water. These parcels are located in the northeast and southeast corners of Lot 2 as originally platted, and are shown in Figure 2 as parcels A and B, respectively. In addition, Lot 8 is larger than indicated by the original survey. The state apparently agrees that the defendants are entitled to ownership of parcel D on Figure 2. 2
The controversy concerns ownership of parcels B and C, which together constitute somewhat less than ten acres. The defendants claim title to this land on the basis of the rule that the boundaries of lands adjoining meandered waters are determined not by the meander lines, but by the actual shoreline of the body of water. This rule limits the state to ownership of parcel A, the defendants argue, because the state's land runs southward only as far as the shore of Lake Emma, and does not continue across the lake to parcels B or C; the defendants thus claim parcels B and C on the theory that their lands in Lot 8 extend westward to the lakeshore.
The state contends that this case is unique, in that the size of Lot 2 was grossly overstated by the original survey, and that under these circumstances an exception should be made to the general rule, and the boundaries as shown on the original plat should control. The state maintains that at the time the original plat of survey was drawn the governmental intent was to convey by the patent all the upland within the area designated as Government Lot 2, including parcel B, regardless of the fact that parcel A and parcel B are on opposite sides of the lake.
The state further insists that ownership of parcel B would entitle the state to a proportionate share of parcel C under sec. 30.10(4)(b), Stats. 3
The case presents the following issues:
1. On the facts presented, should this court recognize an exception to the general rule regarding boundaries along meandered bodies of water, so as to include within Government Lot 2 a triangular parcel (parcel B) in the southeast corner of Lot 2 as platted?
2. Is the state an "adjacent landowner" having a "proper claim" for purposes of sec. 30.10(4)(b), Stats., and therefore entitled to claim a portion of lands between the borders of Lot 2 as originally platted and the actual shore of Lake Emma (parcel C)?
3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment?
PARCEL B.
The state argues that under the circumstances of this case, Government Lot 2 must be considered to include not only the small triangular parcel (A) in the northeast corner of the lot as platted, but also the small triangular parcel (b) in the southeastern corner of the original lot. As the state recognizes, this position is contrary to the general rule regarding the boundaries of lots adjacent to meandered bodies of water.
; Schultz v. Winther, 10 Wis.2d 1, 7, 101 N.W.2d 631, 636 (1960).
Accord: Wisconsin Realty Co. v. Lull, 177 Wis. 53, 187 N.W. 978 (1922); Weaver v. Knudson, 23 Wis.2d 426, 430, 431, 127 N.W.2d 217 (1964).
Under this rule, an owner of land bordering a meandered lake takes only to the shoreline; the boundary lines of his lot stop at the water's edge. See: Weaver v. Knudson, supra, at 431, 127 N.W.2d 217; Munro v. State, 200 Wis. 107, 109, 110, 227 N.W. 394 (1929).
The state seems to concede that application of this rule in the instant case would limit Lot 2 to the triangular parcel (A) in the northeast corner of the original lot. Because the lot was originally platted as being bounded on the south by the northern shore of the lake, the actual boundaries of the lot would be determined by extending boundaries westward and southward from the northeast corner of the lot. These lines would stop at the water's edge, and the lot would be limited to parcel A.
However, the state argues that the general rule is inapplicable and that the meander lines indicated on the plat of survey should be considered to mark the southern boundary of the lot. This argument rests on the alternative propositions that the instant survey was "grossly erroneous," and therefore within a recognized exception to the general rule; that other circumstances establish a governmental intent to make the meander lines the actual boundary of Lots 2 and 8; and that a new exception to the general rule should be recognized to accommodate what the state considers to be the unique circumstances presented here.
The state points out that the intent of the government in making the original grant is always the controlling consideration in determining the boundaries of the grant. 4 Weaver v. Knudson, supra, 23 Wis.2d at 430, 127 N.W.2d 217; Baackes v. Blair, 223 Wis. 83, 87, 269 N.W. 650 (1936); Blatchford v. Voss, 197 Wis. 461, 469, 219 N.W. 100, 222 N.W. 804 (1929); Wisconsin Realty Co. v. Lull, supra, 177 Wis. 61, 187 N.W. 978. Despite the rule that a meander line does not generally determine the boundary of a lot, the meander lines will be considered boundaries where a governmental intention to make them boundaries is shown. Cf. Weaver v. Knudson, supra, 23 Wis.2d at 430, 127 N.W.2d 217. Producers Oil Co. v. Hanzen, 238 U.S. 325, 339, 35 S.Ct. 755, 59 L.Ed. 1330 (1915). The state argues that such an intention is demonstrated here.
Where erroneous meander lines result in such substantial additional acreage between the meander line and the shoreline that the survey constitutes a "gross error," an exception is made to the general rule, and the meander line is held to define the boundary of a lot. This exception is founded on the fact that the acreage, and thus the original purchase price, of such lands were determined with reference to the original plat and the meander lines. Thus where use of the actual shoreline as a boundary would produce an acreage far in excess of that used in computing the sale price of the land, the survey will be held to be a constructive fraud upon the government, and the lot will extend only to the meander line, on the theory that the government did not intend to convey the substantial parcel of omitted land between the meander line and the shore. Schultz v. Winther, supra 10 Wis.2d 8-13, 101 N.W.2d 631; Clark, Surveying and Boundaries (3d ed.), sec. 627, pp. 731, 733.
The state contends that this exception is applicable here. The meander lines...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D.S.A. v. Circuit Court Branch 1
... ... and an expert's view of the reliability of one of the state's witnesses (who was five years old). The trial court ... rights, including suffrage and the right to hold public office, restored as of May 10, 1983. However, respondent ... ...
-
Perpignani v. Vonasek
... ... avoid inequitable results when apportioning relicted lands. Id ... The two applicable choices in ... See State v. Pharr, 115 Wis.2d 334, 342, 340 N.W.2d 498, 501 (1983) ... 5, at 355; see also State v. Thiel, 82 Wis.2d 276, 283, 262 N.W.2d 522, 527-28 (1978) ... 4 ... ...
-
Hutchens v. Simonson, 04-1234-FT.
... ... a different place in 1946 than it is now, he did not state where it might have been in 1946. In fact, there is no ... 1999). See also State Commissioners v. Thiel, 82 Wis. 2d 276, 283, 262 N.W.2d 522 (1978) ("The general ... ...
-
Butler v. Western Cas.
... ... the same insurer as long as each insurer notifies the State Department of Transportation that its coverage only extends ... See State Commissioners of Board of Public Lands v. Thiel, 82 Wis.2d 276, 292, 262 N.W.2d 522, 532 ... ...