No. 81-544

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982

LAURENCE G. CHRISTIE, et dl., Plaintiffs and Respondents, -vs-

CHARLES A. PAPKE, et dl., Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin, The Honorable Joseph B. Gary, Judge presiding.

Counsel of Record :

For Appellants: Bolinger and Higgins, Bozemzn, Montana

For Respondents: Nash and Nash, Bozeman, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: May 20, 1982 Decided: November 9, 1982

Filed: \ 7982 M r . J u s t i c e D a n i e l J. Shea d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.

Defendants, C h a r l e s A . Papke, e t a l , a p p e a l from a

judgment of t h e G a l l a t i n County D i s t r i c t C o u r t q u i e t i n g

t i t l e t o c e r t a i n l a n d s i n f a v o r o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s , Laurence

G. C h r i s t i e and h i s w i f e .

T h i s c a s e i n v o l v e s a boundary d i s p u t e between a d j a c e n t

landowners. P l a i n t i f f , Laurence G. C h r i s t i e ( C h r i s t i e )

b r o u g h t t h i s q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e ownership of a

t r i a n g u l a r s t r i p of l a n d l y i n g a l o n g t h e boundary between

t h e p a r t i e s ' lands. The t r i a l c o u r t , s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a

j u r y , h e l d f o r C h r i s t i e and o r d e r e d t h a t C h r i s t i e ' s t i t l e t o

t h e disputed s t r i p be quieted. The t r i a l c o u r t a l s o o r d e r e d

t h e d e f e n d a n t s (Papke) t o r e b u i l d a f e n c e which h e had t o r n

down o r t o pay f o r t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n .

Papke c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t f i n d i n g

t h a t an i m p l i e d a g r e e d boundary was e s t a b l i s h e d by a f e n c e

b u i l t i n 1920, and t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d a l s o have

found t h a t Papke c o u l d r e c o v e r money h e s p e n t t o r e p l a c e t h e

1920 f e n c e which C h r i s t i e had d e s t r o y e d . W e affirm.

Both p a r t i e s ' p r e d e c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t r e c e i v e d t i t l e

t o t h e i r p r o p e r t y by p a t e n t from t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s government.

The boundary between t h e p r o p e r t i e s i s d e s c r i b e d i n b o t h

deeds as t h e q u a r t e r s e c t i o n l i n e . I n 1920, a t e n a n t of

C h r i s t i e ' s p r e d e c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t b u i l t a f e n c e which

s e r v e d a s a boundary between t h e p r o p e r t i e s u n t i l 1976.

I n 1976, C h r i s t i e h i r e d a l i c e n s e d s u r v e y o r . The

survey r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e a c t u a l q u a r t e r s e c t i o n

l i n e w a s l o c a t e d somewhat s o u t h of t h e 1920 f e n c e l i n e .

Papke's land l i e s d i r e c t l y south of C h r i s t i e ' s . T h i s meant

t h a t t h e 1920 f e n c e d e p r i v e d C h r i s t i e o f t h e f u l l u s e o f t h e

l a n d d e s c r i b e d i n h i s deed. In 1978, Christie destroyed the 1920 fence and built a fence along the boundary indicated in the 1976 survey. In 1980, Papke destroyed the new fence and reestablished the

1920 fence. This suit followed. Papke argues that because the 1920 fence served as a boundary for approximately 58 years and because Christie

helped to maintain the fence; that at some point the fence became the actual boundary by implied agreement. Although we have recognized the right of adjoining property owners to establish an agreed boundary line (~yrick v. Peet (1919), 56 Mont. 13, 180 P. 574), under own send v.

Kuokol the parties are required to prove by clear and con-

vincing evidence all elements of an implied agreed boundary. In Townsend, 148 Mont. 1, at 6, 416 P.2d 532, at 535, we stated:

"[iln order to establish an agreed boundary line, the evidence must show more than mere acquiescence and occupancy for the time prescribed by the statute of limitations; it must go further and show that there was uncertainty in the location of the line, that there was an agreement among the coterminus owners, express or implied, fixing the line, and that there was an actual designation of the line upon the ground and occupation in accordance therewith." In a memorandum accompanying the findings and conclusions (a most helpful device to an appellate court), the trial court applied Townsend, and stated that "[iln this case the evidence was not clear and convincing that the parties or predecessors in interest had agreed that the fence line would be the dividing line." Although Christie helped to maintain the 1920 fence, his long acquiescence in the existence of the 1920 fence did not create an implied agreement establishing a boundary. Papke cites authority from other jurisdictions holding that l o n g a c q u i e s c e n c e i s enough. However, o u r law i s t o t h e

c o n t r a r y , and w e choose t o f o l l o w i t . (Townsend v. Kuokol,

supra. )

The r u l e i s t h a t "where . . . two a d j o i n i n g p r o p r i e t o r s

a r e d i v i d e d by a f e n c e which t h e y suppose t o be t h e t r u e

l i n e , t h e y a r e n o t bound by t h e supposed l i n e , b u t must

conform t o t h e t r u e l i n e when i t i s a s c e r t a i n e d . " Myrick in v. P e e t , s u p r a ; reaffirmec$?'Schmuclc v. Beck ( 1 9 2 5 ) , 72 Mont. 6 0 6 , 234 P . 477; and Reel v. W a l t e r ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 1 3 1 Mont. 3 3 2 ,

309 P.2d 1027. The t r i a l c o u r t found t h e most c r e d i b l e

e v i d e n c e o f t h e t r u e boundary t o be t h e 1976 s u r v e y . The

t r i a l c o u r t had b e f o r e i t t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e s u r v e y o r and

t h e p l a t p r e p a r e d by him. The e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e f i n d i n g

t h a t t h e s u r v e y had been p r o p e r l y made and t h e l i n e p r o p e r l y

located.

Our h o l d i n g on t h e i m p l i e d boundary i s s u e means t h a t

Papke would have no r i g h t t o r e c o v e r on h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m

a s k i n g f o r f e n c e c o n s t r u c t i o n e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d when he

r e b u i l t t h e 1920 f e n c e which C h r i s t i e had t o r n down i n 1978.

I n ruling for plaintiff Christie, the t r i a l court

o r d e r e d t h a t Papke, i n l i e u of damages, must r e e s t a b l i s h t h e

f e n c e a l o n g t h e t r u e boundary l i n e s u r v e y e d by Ronald L .

Burgess i n 1976. The t r i a l c o u r t gave Papke 1 1/2 months

a f t e r judgment t o comply w i t h i t s o r d e r t o r e c o n s t r u c t t h e

f e n c e . T h a t judgment was s t a y e d pending t h i s a p p e a l . In

a f f i r m i n g w e remand t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e a

p r o p e r t i m e f o r Papke t o b u i l d t h e f e n c e o r t o pay damages

i n l i e u of c o n s t r u c t i o n .

Affirmed and remanded. We Concur: ,/ /

- , / I

/ Justices t