Tester v. Tester

• Decision Date: 18 May 2000
• Docket Number: No. 99-279.,99-279.
• Citation: Tester v. Tester, 2000 MT 130, 3 P.3d 109, 300 Mont. 5 (Mont. 2000)
• Parties: William D. TESTER, Stephen F. Tester, and Patricia A. Walch, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. John J. TESTER; Edith Nora Tester, and E.T. Rich; 360 Ranch, Inc., Delaney and Company, Inc.; Donald and Sarah Hammersmark; Erik and Anna Hammersmark; Virgil and Ann Mae Terry; Carl L. Stucky; John Clark Adams; Siffert; J.J. and Edna Tracy White; Erma A. and H.R. Reid; Nellie W. Rich; James O. and Gladys Funk; Floyd D. Butler; George R. McCarty; Anne M. Holmes unknown heirs or unknown devisees of any deceased person; and all other persons unknown, claiming or who claim any right, title, or interest in, or lien or encumbrance upon, the real property described in the Complaint, adverse to the Plaintiffs' title thereto, whether such claim be present or contingent, Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

3 P.3d 109

2000 MT 130

300 Mont. 5

William D. TESTER, Stephen F. Tester, and Patricia A. Walch, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v.John J. TESTER; Edith Nora Tester, and E.T. Rich; 360 Ranch, Inc., Delaney and Company, Inc.; Donald and Sarah Hammersmark; Erik and Anna Hammersmark; Virgil and Ann Mae Terry; Carl L. Stucky; John Clark Adams; Siffert; J.J. and Edna Tracy White; Erma A. and H.R. Reid; Nellie W. Rich; James O. and Gladys Funk; Floyd D. Butler; George R. McCarty; Anne M. Holmes unknown heirs or unknown devisees of any deceased person; and all other persons unknown, claiming or who claim any right, title, or interest in, or lien or encumbrance upon, the real property described in the Complaint, adverse to the Plaintiffs' title thereto, whether such claim be present or contingent, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 99-279.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs December 2, 1999.

Decided May 18, 2000.

Rehearing Denied June 15, 2000.

Michael E. Wheat, Julieann McGarry, Cok, Wheat, Brown & McGarry, Bozeman, Montana, For Appelant.

Charles F. Angel, Angel Law Firm, Bozeman, Montana, For Respondent.

Justice WILLIAM E. HUNT, Sr.delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1Appellant360 Ranch, Inc.(360) appeals from the March 18, 1999 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, quieting title to certain property in favor of RespondentsWilliam Tester, Stephen Tester, and Patricia Walch(the Testers), and against 360.We reverse.

¶ 2 360 raises the following issues on appeal:

I Did the District Court err in awarding judgment quieting title to the disputed property in favor of Testers and against 360?

II Did the District Court err in awarding costs of suit to the Testers?

STATEMENT OF FACTS

¶ 3 At the heart of this quiet title action lies a boundary dispute.The Testers and 360 each own property in Section 17, Township 1 North, Range 7 East of the Montana Principal Meridian.The property is located in Bridger Canyon, just north of Bozeman, Montana.Generally speaking, the Testers own land in the east half of the Section while 360 owns land in the west half.Two roads of public record run through the Section in a north-south direction.One is the 1891County Road(County Road), the other is the 1948State Highway(State Highway).

¶ 4 In 1891, the Gallatin County Commissioners adopted as the official County Road an existing road which ran in a north-south direction through Bridger Canyon.The official location of the County Road remains as it existed when it was originally surveyed by the County Surveyor in 1891, but at some point thereafter there were "realignments" in portions of the road creating a separate "traveled way."No evidence in the record indicates that the realignments were official, who made them, or when they occurred, and the original County Road remained the only official public road in the Section until the establishment of the State Highway in 1948.At some point the County Road was realigned approximately 200 feet to the west creating an isolated parcel of land bordered on the east by the official County Road, and on the west by the newly created "traveled way," but the County Road has never been officially abandoned by the County.

¶ 5 In 1948, the State Highway Commission built and graveled a state highway through Bridger Canyon.In some places the highway was constructed directly on top of the County Road while in other places, it was constructed on top of the existing "traveled way."In the southern part of the Section, the State Highway and the County Road run parallel to one another, with the State Highway running to the west of the County Road.However, toward the middle of Section 17, the State Highway crosses over and runs on the east of the County Road for a stretch.In the north end of the Section, the State Highway once again crosses back to the west side of the County Road.It is the ownership of the island of property in the south end of the Section bordered on the west by the State Highway and on the east by the County Road which is in dispute.Evidence in the record indicates that the importance of the parcel is that 360 plans a subdivision on its property west of the Highway and the property in question would add acreage and therefore density rights to the property.

¶ 6 360 asserts the Testers' predecessors-in-interest intended the County Road to be the boundary line between the parties' property, thereby placing ownership of the disputed parcel with 360.The Testers contend the grantors in their chain intended the State Highway(or the traveled way beneath it) to be the boundary line, making the Testers the rightful owners of the disputed parcel.

¶ 7 On October 15, 1996, the Testers commenced an action to quiet title to all land in the Section lying east of the center line of the County road, on the basis of both legal title and adverse possession.The Testers later stated their claim as "all land lying east of the center line of a public road." 360 denied the Testers' claims and asserted it owned the disputed property.Trial was held in October, 1998, and in March, 1999, the District Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order quieting title in favor of the Testers and awarding them the costs of the suit.

¶ 8 I Did the District Court err in awarding judgment quieting title to the disputed property in favor of Testers and against 360?

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 9We review a district court's findings of fact to determine whether they are clearly erroneous.State v. Wooster,1999 MT 22, ¶ 2, 293 Mont. 195, ¶ 2, 974 P.2d 640, ¶ 2(citingInterstate Production Credit v. DeSaye(1991), 250 Mont. 320, 323, 820 P.2d 1285, 1287).We review a district court's conclusions of law to determine whether the interpretation is correct.Cenex Pipeline L.L.C. v. Fly Creek Angus, Inc.,1998 MT 334, ¶ 22, 292 Mont. 300, ¶ 22, 971 P.2d 781, ¶ 22(citingCarbon County v. Union Reserve Coal Co.(1995), 271 Mont. 459, 469, 898 P.2d 680, 686).

¶ 10This Court has adopted a three-part test to determine whether a district court's finding of fact is clearly erroneous."A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is not supported by substantial evidence, if the district court misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or if, after reviewing the record, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made."Matter of Estate of Hunsaker,1998 MT 279, ¶ 26, 291 Mont. 412, ¶ 26, 968 P.2d 281, ¶ 26(citingDeSaye,250 Mont. at 323, 820 P.2d at 1287).

¶ 11The District Court found that the resolution of the parties' dispute depended on whether the County Road or the State Highway serves as the boundary line between the parties' property.The District Court concluded that the State Highway is the legal boundary, and that the Testers own the disputed property through legal title and adverse possession. 360 claims the District Court's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and is incorrect.

¶ 12The parties agree ownership of legal title to the disputed property turns on whether the grantors in the Testers' chain of title intended the County Road or the State Highway to serve as the western boundary of the Testers' property. 360 asserts that in determining whether the Testers have legal title to the land in question, this Court must examine the deeds in the Testers' chain of title to determine what was granted to them.In construing such deeds, 360 contends we should rely on the plain language which has repeatedly described the property as lying either east of the "public road,""country road," or "old county road" not east of the "State Highway" or east of the "traveled way" which later became the State Highway.Therefore, 360 argues that according to the plain language of the deeds, the County Road and not the State Highway is the proper boundary between the properties.

¶ 13 The Testers claim the District Court correctly determined they own legal title to the disputed property because the State Highway and not the County Road has been consistently treated as their western boundary.They maintain the evidence clearly shows that all parties except 360, including both parties predecessors-in-interest, considered the road which became the State Highway to be the dividing line between the properties.As a result, they assert that references in the deeds in their chain of title to the "public road" or "county road" actually refer to the "traveled way" which is today the State Highway.Furthermore, the Testers assert that the District Court correctly determined they owned the property in question by way of adverse possession.

¶ 14The District Court concluded that the Testers proved their legal title to the disputed property with "clear and satisfactory proof of title," that the center line of the State Highway is the boundary line between the properties.The court stated,

[t]he testimony of the three plaintiffs, the deeds in plaintiffs' chain of title, the plats of Section 17 from the County Clerk and Recorder's Office, the County tax records and the State Highway records support plaintiffs' claim to all property east of the Highway because the evidence shows that the "Public Road as the same is now constructed" was consistently treated as the western boundary of the plaintiffs' property.

The court also concluded as a matter of law that the Testers established adverse possession by claiming the property under color of title and showing that their possession of the disputed property has been "actual, visible, exclusive, hostile, and continuous" for the period of five years immediately before the complaint was filed.

Legal Title

¶ 15 In order to determine whether the District Court was correct in concluding that the Testers had legal title to the disputed property, we begin by examining the Testers' chain of title.In 1903, the entirety of Section 17, containing 640 acres...