Shurtz v. Dalton Grove ( 2021 )

06/01/2021
DA 20-0507
Case Number: DA 20-0507
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2021 MT 137N
BONNIE SHURTZ,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
DALTON GROVE PROPERTIES, LP,
Defendant and Appellant.
ESTATE OF JOHN BILLMAYER, ESTATE
OF KATHRYN BILLMAYER, and all other
persons, unknown, claiming or who may claim
any right, title, estate, or interest in or lien of
encumbrance upon the real property described
in the complaint adverse to plaintiff’s ownership
of any cloud upon plaintiff’s title, whether the
claim or possible claim is present or contingent,
Defendants.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Lake, Cause No. DV-18-255
Honorable Deborah Kim Christopher, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Richard P. DeJana, Richard De Jana & Associates, PLLC, Kalispell,
Montana
For Appellee:
Joseph D. Houston, Kevin S. Jones, Jones & Associates, PLLC, Missoula,
Montana
Submitted on Briefs: April 14, 2021
Decided: June 1, 2021
Filed:
sr---6ma•—•f
__________________________________________
Clerk
2
Justice Laurie McKinnon delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports.
¶2 Dalton Grove Properties, LP, appeals an order from the Twentieth Judicial District
Court, Lake County, denying its motions for partial summary judgment and granting
Bonnie Shurtz’s cross motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
¶3 This matter concerns a disputed gap of land between the boundaries of properties
owned by the parties. On July 26, 1982, the following lakefront property was conveyed
to Shurtz and her husband, and subsequently deeded exclusively to Shurtz on
June 15, 1998:
That portion of Government Lot 1, Section 13, Township 26 North,
Range 20 West, Lake County, Montana, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Section 13; thence along the North
line of Section 13 West 1060.44 feet to the point of beginning; thence
South 128.80 feet; thence 490.70 feet more or less to the low water mark of
Flathead Lake; thence Northwesterly along the low water mark 140 feet
more or less to the North line of Section 13; thence along said North line
East 540.59 feet more or less to the point of beginning, containing
1.53 acres more or less of land.
In accordance with Certificate of Survey No. 3864.
3
James and Patricia Lafferty, principals of Dalton Grove, a Texas-based company, were
deeded the following lakefront property on February 28, 2003, which was later deeded
entirely to Dalton Grove on June 19, 2017:
A portion of Government Lot 1, Section 13, Township 26 North, Range 20
West, P.M.M., Lake County, Montana, described as follows:
Beginning at a point 20 feet West and 128.8 feet South of the Northeast
corner of said Government Lot 1; thence running West 1401.1 feet to the
meander line of Flathead Lake; thence along said meander line 100.8 feet;
thence East 1413.9 feet to a point 20 feet West of the East line of said
Government Lot 1; thence North 100 feet to the place of beginning.
Further identified as being Tract 3 of the unrecorded plat of Piedmont
Tracts and herein referred to as Deed Exhibit H-55, on file in the office of
the Clerk and Recorder of Lake County, Montana.
Both the above-listed properties were once owned by Lewis Butterfield as a larger
development entitled, “Lake County Piedmont Tracts” (Piedmont Tracts). On
May 18, 1945, the Piedmont Tracts were depicted in Exhibit H-55 (H-55), recorded with
the deed, as 18 separate lakefront tracts of real property located on the west side of
Flathead Lake. H-55 described Butterfield as the original property owner and included a
signed and sworn statement dated May 11, 1945, from a civil engineer. Prior to
recording H-55, Butterfield had deeded multiple tracts within the
Piedmont Tracts: (1) June 19, 1939, deed for “Lake Co. Piedmont Tracts Lot 18”;
(2) April 30, 1940, deed for “Lot 10 of the unrecorded plat of Piedmont Tracts”;
(3) April 30, 1940, deed for “Lot 9 of the unrecorded plat of Piedmont Tracts”;
(4) September 17, 1941, deed for “Tract No. 16 of the plat of Lake County Piedmont
Tracts”; (5) October 10, 1942, deed for “Tract No. 15 of unrecorded plat of Lake County
Piedmont Tracts”; (6) May 3, 1943, deed for “Tract No. 11 of the unrecorded plat of
4
Lake County Piedmont Tracts”; (7) April 6, 1945, deed for “Tracts numbered 1 and 2 of
the first party’s unrecorded plat of Lake County Piedmont Tracts,” “Tracts numbered 6,
7, and 8 of the first party’s unrecorded plat of Lake County Piedmont Tracts,”
“Tracts numbered 12, 13, and 14 of the first party’s unrecorded plat of Lake County
Piedmont Tracts,” and “tract numbered 17 of the first party’s unrecorded plat of Lake
County Piedmont Tracts.” The deed dated April 6, 1945 contained a handwritten
description stating: “See Deed Exhibit H-55.”
¶4 Shurtz’s property is part of what was described as “Tracts numbered 1 and 2 of the
first party’s unrecorded plat of Lake County Piedmont Tracts” and depicted in a deed
recorded April 6, 1945. Thereafter, the grantees deeded their interest on May 13, 1946,
describing the property conveyed as “Lots 1 and 2 of Piedmont Tracts, according to the
map or plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder
of Lake County, Montana.” The Clerk and Recorder placed a note on the deed indicating
“See Plat H-55 in reference to this Deed.” Also, Butterfield deeded title to the property
currently owned by Dalton Grove and depicted as “Tract Three” on July 23, 1945. This
deed specifically referred to H-55. Butterfield’s conveyance of Tract 4 in the
Piedmont Tracts also referred to H-55.
¶5 Shurtz’s predecessors-in-interest subdivided their interest in Tracts 1 and 2,
creating four separate parcels depicted in Certificate of Survey No. 2909 (COS 2909) and
No. 3684 (COS 3684). By deed, dated July 26, 1982, Shurtz was conveyed the property
depicted in COS 3684. However, when COS 2909 and COS 3684 were prepared, an
error was made by the surveyor which created a gap between Tracts 1 and 2 that ran
5
parallel with cardinal west bearings. Shurtz and her family have utilized the gap,
traversed it, and cultivated it since 1982. Shurtz was unaware of the surveying error.
¶6 In July 2017, Dalton Grove hired a surveyor to record a Certificate of Survey
7225-RT (COS 7225-RT). COS 7225-RT detailed the northern boundary of Tract 3 as
the southern boundaries indicated in COS 2909 and COS 3684, essentially encompassing
the gap at issue. COS 7225-RT thus allocated more land to Tract 3 than what was
described in H-55 or than what was contained in the deed to Dalton Grove. Shurtz hired
a surveyor as well, who indicated the gap was part of Tract 2, as shown on H-55.
Shurtz’s surveyor further acknowledged that when COS 2909 and COS 3684 were
prepared, they failed to include all of Tracts 1 and 2 and did not establish the northern
boundary of Tract 3. However, the surveyor maintained that H-55 accurately depicted all
of those boundaries and was the proper description upon which to base the survey.
¶7 Shurtz filed an action for quiet title in October 2018, asserting Dalton Grove was
trespassing and had damaged her land, i.e., the gap at issue. Competing motions for
summary judgment were filed by both parties in 2019. Dalton Grove argued the gap at
issue was part of Tract 3 and that H-55 was not a proper deed depicting the
Piedmont Tracts. Shurtz argued the gap was part of Tract 2 and H-55 was the only true
and accurate document depicting the conveyance of tracts within the Piedmont Tracts. A
two-day bench trial was scheduled for August 19 and 20, 2020, however, was later
vacated. The District Court issued a final order on July 17, 2020, which denied
Dalton Grove’s motions for partial summary judgment, and granted Shurtz’s
cross motion for summary judgment. Dalton Grove appeals.
6
¶8 “The standard of review for a district court’s granting of summary judgment is
de novo.” Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Johnson, 2009 MT 442, ¶ 7, 354 Mont. 192,
224 P.3d 613. The facts presented are reviewed to determine whether the prevailing part
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Johnson, ¶ 7. Summary judgment “shall be
rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law.” M. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Mattson v. Mont. Power Co., 2009 MT 286, ¶ 15,
352 Mont. 212, 215 P.3d 675. We review a district court’s conclusions of law de novo to
determine whether those conclusions are correct. Mattson, ¶ 15.
¶9 Dalton Grove asserts the District Court erred in relying solely on H-55.
Dalton Grove also asserts COS 7225-RT correctly depicts the boundary lines between
Tract 2 and Tract 3; that H-55 only provides subjective extrinsic evidence; and that
Butterfield intended to include the gap within Tract 3. We disagree.
¶10 When the description contained in a deed “refers to a map and that reference is
inconsistent with other particulars, it controls them if it appears that the parties acted
with reference to the map.” Section 70-20-201(6), MCA (emphasis added). H-55 is a
map of the Piedmont Tracts created and certified by a civil engineer in 1945. The
description provided, “the annexed plat is a true and correct copy of the original plat of
the Lake County Piedmont Tracts.” All other deeds and conveyances by Butterfield, or
subsequent grantees, involving the Piedmont Tracts refer to the H-55 map or plat.
7
We conclude H-55 is the controlling document depicting the Piedmont Tracts and its
conveyances.
¶11 Our conclusion is supported by our assessment of the parties’ intent. “The main
object in construing a deed is to ascertain the intention of the parties from the language
used and to effectuate such intention where not inconsistent with any rule of law.”
Henningsen v. Stromberg, 124 Mont. 185, 191, 221 P.2d 438, 442 (1950). H-55 is the
only instrument that purports to show Butterfield’s intended divisions and conveyances.
All subsequent documents, including the Shurtz deed and the Dalton Grove deed,
reference H-55. The property descriptions in Butterfield’s deeds that predate the
recording of H-55 demonstrate he conveyed the properties with reference to what was
depicted in H-55. To construe the conveyances consistently and ascertain the intent of
the Butterfield deeds, the District Court had to rely on H-55. The District Court did not
err in concluding H-55 expressed the intention of the Butterfield deeds, particularly in the
conveyances to Shurtz and Dalton Grove.
¶12 The District Court also correctly concluded that § 70-20-201, MCA, gives priority
to maps referenced by the deed of conveyance. Section 70-20-201(6), MCA, provides
that “[w]hen the description refers to a map and that reference is inconsistent with other
particulars, it controls them if it appears the parties acted with reference to the map . . . .”
The District Court’s conclusion that H-55 clearly established the intention of the
landowner was supported by the continual reference to H-55 in the deeds, the
conveyances, and descriptions of the boundary lines. Furthermore, the District Court was
correct in concluding COS 7225-RT was not an accurate depiction of the conveyances.
8
¶13 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion
of the Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear
application of applicable standards of review.
¶14 Affirmed.
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
We concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
9