Burlingame v. Marjerrison

No. 82-214
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

1983

CLAUDE I. BURLINGAME .and
CAROL T. BURLINGAME,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,

FRED B. MARJERRISON and
JEANNINE 0 !.WRJERRISON,
.

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Sanders,
The Honorable Douglas G. Harkin, Judge presiding.

Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:
Claude I. Burlingame, pro se, Thompson Falls,
Montana
For Respondents:

Morales, Volinkaty & Harr; Richard Volinkaty,
Missoula, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: February 3, 1983
Decided: June 30, 1983

~iled: JUN 3 0 1983

Clerk
Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . B a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f
t h e Court.

C l a u d e and C a r o l B u r l i n g a m e f i l e d a q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n

t o determine ownership, c o n t r o l and u s e r i g h t s of a p a r c e l
of l a n d l o c a t e d i n Sanders County, Montana. The D i s t r i c t
Court sitting without a jury decreed that title to the
p r o p e r t y was v e s t e d i n B u r l i n g a m e s b u t t h a t M a r j e r r i s o n s had

a c q u i r e d p r e s c r i p t i v e e a s e m e n t s f o r g r a z i n g , a g r i c u l t u r e and
timber h a r v e s t i n g . C o s t s were awarded t o M a r j e r r i s o n s . Fol-
l o w i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e n i a l of B u r l i n g a m e s ' m o t i o n s
t o r e t a x t h e c o s t s and t o amend t h e f i n d i n g s of fact, con-

c l u s i o n s o f l a w and d e c r e e , B u r l i n g a m e s a p p e a l . W e reverse.

On March 2 4 , 1 9 7 8 , B u r l i n g a m e s e n t e r e d a c o n t r a c t f o r

deed to purchase the southeast quarter of the northeast
quarter (SE1/4 NE1/4) of Section 30, Township 20 North,
Range 26 West, M.P.M. Marjerrisons hold title to the
n o r t h e a s t q u a r t e r o f t h e s o u t h e a s t q u a r t e r (NE1/4 SE1/4) o f

S e c t i o n 3 0 , Township 20 N o r t h , Range 26 West M.P.M. Marjer-
risons' t i t l e was a c q u i r e d t h r o u g h two d e e d s d a t e d November

3, 1 9 4 5 , and J a n u a r y 24, 1962. Both t h e Burlingame p a r c e l
and the Marjerrison parcel were originally acquired by
United States patent i n 1 9 0 6 by A l e x a n d e r Rhone and w e r e
held as one tract until Marjerrisons' predecessor in
interest divided the property.
A s u r v e y was c o n d u c t e d on b e h a l f o f B u r l i n g a m e s a s a
c o n d i t i o n t o t h e s a l e of t h e property. It revealed t h a t a

f e n c e b e t w e e n t h e two p a r c e l s e n c l o s e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y five
a c r e s of t h e Burlingame t r a c t on i t s s o u t h e r n border.
For purposes of illustration, the following rough
s k e t c h is p r o v i d e d :

SKETCH of S E C T I O N 30

The d a r k l i n e b e t w e e n A a n d B r e p r e s e n t s t h e s u r v e y e d

line, e s t a b l i s h e d by Gene W a r r e n a n d r e c o g n i z e d by B u r l i n -

games a s t h e s o u t h b o u n d a r y o f SE1/4 NE1/4. The d o t t e d l i n e

b e t w e e n A 1 and B1 r e p r e s e n t s t h e f e n c e c l a i m e d by M a r j e r r i -

s o n s a s t h e n o r t h b o u n d a r y o f t h e NE1/4 SE1/4.

Fred Marjerrison has l i v e d on the Marjerrison tract

s i n c e Christmas day, 1935. M a r j e r r i s o n s b u i l t t h e i r home o n

t h a t t r a c t and t h e y h a v e u s e d t h e t r a c t , including the five-

acre parcel, for cattle grazing, agriculture and timber

h a r v e s t i n g s i n c e 1935.

P u b l i c r e c o r d s show t h a t t a x e s o n t h e two t r a c t s were

c o n s i s t e n t l y p a i d by t h e two p a r t i e s and t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s

in interest. A determination of acreage f o r tax purposes
h a s b e e n a c c o m p l i s h e d by a r e v i e w o f p l a t b o o k s a n d i s b a s e d

upon t h e l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n s p r o v i d e d i n d e e d s and c o n t r a c t s .

No boundary agreements or surveys otherwise affecting the

l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n of e i t h e r p a r c e l have been l o c a t e d .

The District Court, after consideration of all the

evidence and the issues raised at trial, and after an

i n s p e c t i o n of t h e premises, found t h a t : no a g r e e d b o u n d a r y

change existed; Marjerrisons had not acquired equitable

t i t l e t o t h e property through adverse possession; and, that

the survey was correct. It also found, however, that

Marjerrisons had acquired prescriptive easements on the

parcel for grazing, agricultural, and timber harvesting

p u r p o s e s and t h e c o u r t awarded c o s t s t o M a r j e r r i s o n s .

Burlingames p r e s e n t t h r e e i s s u e s on appeal:

1. Whether s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e

decree;

2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g Bur-

lingames' motion t o r e t a x c o s t s ; and,

3. Whether t h e amended b i l l o f c o s t s i s v a l i d .

W e w i l l address only the first issue, which is d i s -

p o s i t i v e of t h i s c a s e .

This Court w i l l n o t overturn t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t of a

District Court where they are supported by substantial,

though c o n f l i c t i n g , evidence u n l e s s t h e r e is a c l e a r prepon-

derance of t h e evidence a g a i n s t t h e findings. S t a t e ex r e l .

tillson v. Department of N a t u r a l Resources and C o n s e r v a t i o n

o f S t a t e o f Montana, W a t e r R e s o u r c e s D i v . (1982), Mont.

, 648 P.2d 7 6 6 , 7 7 2 , 39 S t . R e p . 1294, 1302. W e view t h e

evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing
party. Cameron & J e n k i n s v. Cameron ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 9 Mont. 219,

228, 587 P.2d 9 3 9 , 944. Here, t h e evidence does n o t s u p p o r t

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g of p r e s c r i p t i v e easements.

An e a s e m e n t i s a r i g h t w h i c h o n e p e r s o n h a s t o u s e t h e

land of another for a specific purpose or a servitude

imposed a s a b u r d e n o n l a n d . P a r k C o u n t y Rod a n d Gun C l u b

v. Department of Highways (1973), 1 6 3 Mont. 372, 376-377,

517 P.2d 3 5 2 , 355. An e a s e m e n t c o n s i s t s o f b o t h a d o m i n a n t

tenement, o r l a n d t o which t h e e a s e m e n t is a t t a c h e d , and a

servient tenement or land on which a burden is imposed.

S e c t i o n 70-17-103, MCA.

A t common law, an easement was defined as a

nonpossessory interest in land that did not include the

r i g h t t o take t h e s o i l or a substance of t h e s o i l . William

E. Burby, Real Property, S 22 a t 62-64; 25 Arn.Jur.2d Ease-

ments and L i c e n s e s , s§ l , 2. A nonpossessory interest in

land t h a t consisted of a r i g h t t o take t h e s o i l o r substance

of the soil, s u c h a s t h e r i g h t t o t a k e w i l d game o r f i s h ,
\\
was known as a p r o f i t a p r e n d r e . B u r b y , Real P r o p e r t y , S 22

a t 62-64; Black v. Elkhorn Min. Co. (1892), 49 F. 549,

aff'd 52 F. 859, a f f ' d ( 1 8 9 6 ) , 163 U.S. 445, 16 S.Ct. 1101,

4 1 L.Ed. 221. Other examples of profits 2 prendre include

t h e r i g h t t o f e e d c a t t l e on a n o t h e r ' s l a n d a n d t h e r i g h t t o

take gravel or stone or minerals from another's land.

Thompson on R e a l P r o p e r t y , S 1 3 5 a t 474 ( 1 9 8 0 r e p l a c e m e n t ) .

B o t h e a s e m e n t s a n d p r o f i t s may b e a c q u i r e d by e x p r e s s g r a n t ,

reservation i n a deed of the servient land, implied g r a n t ,

or by prescription. Thompson, supra, S 135 a t 488-489;

Burby, supra, SS 26-31 a t 68-83; P r e n t i c e v. McKay ( 1 9 0 9 ) ,
3 8 Mont. 1 1 4 , 98 P. 1081.

This Court has long recognized both servitudes. R. M.

Cobban R e a l t y Co. v. D o n l a n ( 1 9 1 5 ) , 5 1 Mont. 58, 66, 149 P.

484, 487. S e e a l s o , B r a n n o n v. L e w i s & C l a r k County ( 1 9 6 3 ) ,

1 4 3 Mont. 200, 2 0 4 , 387 P.2d 7 0 6 , 709. Both forms of s e r v i -

t u d e s h a v e b e e n c o d i f i e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n s e c t i o n s 70-

17-101 and -102, MCA. The first of the two sections

provides :

"The f o l l o w i n g l a n d b u r d e n s o r s e r v i t u d e s
upon l a n d may b e a t t a c h e d t o o t h e r l a n d
a s i n c i d e n t s o r a p p u r t e n a n c e s and a r e
then c a l l e d easements:

" ( 1 ) t h e r i g h t of pasture;

"(5) the r i g h t o f t a k i n g w a t e r , wood,
minerals, and o t h e r t h i n g s . " (Emphasis
added. )

Section 76-17-102, MCA, also defines land burdens or

servitudes that may be granted and held even though not

attached t o land. It too provides as servitudes the right

of pasture, the right of taking water, and the right of

taking other things. W h i l e a s e r v i t u d e may b y d e f i n i t i o n b e

an easement, n o t a l l s e r v i t u d e s are easements s i n c e n o t a l l

s e r v i t u d e s a r e a t t a c h e d t o o t h e r l a n d as a p p u r t e n a n c e s .

By c o n t r a s t , t h e d o c t r i n e of adverse possession r e f e r s

t o a c q u i s i t i o n of a p o s s e s s o r y i n t e r e s t i n l a n d and r e s u l t s

i n a c q u i s i t i o n of t i t l e t o t h e p r o p e r t y . Brannon v. Lewis &

C l a r k County, s u p r a , 1 4 3 Mont. a t 2 0 6 , 387 P.2d a t 7 1 0 . The

p r o p e r t y must be c l a i m e d under c o l o r o f t i t l e o r by p o s s e s -

s i o n w h i c h is a c t u a l , visible, exclusive, h o s t i l e and con-

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

p o s s e s s i o n m u s t a l s o h a v e p a i d t h e t a x e s on t h e p r o p e r t y f o r
the full statutory period pursuant to section 70-19-411,
MCA. Swecker v. Dorn (1979), 181 Mont. 436, 441, 593 P.2d
1055, 1058.
Here, the District Court held that Marjerrisons had
not acquired title to the parcel through adverse possession
since they did not pay property taxes on the disputed parcel
as required pursuant to section 70-19-411, MCA. Brannon v.
Lewis & Clark County, supra, 143 Mont. at 206, 387 P.2d at
710. It also found no agreed boundary change and no error
in the survey. It then concluded that Marjerrisons had
acquired prescriptive easements for the purpose of grazing,
agriculture and timber harvesting. We disagree.
Both prescriptive easements and title by adverse
possession are established in a similar manner. Brannon v.
Lewis and Clark County, supra. The claimant must show use
that is open, notorious, exclusive, adverse, continuous, and
uninterrupted for the full statutory period. Blasdel v.
Montana Power Co. (1982), Mon t . , 640 P.2d 889,
895, 39 St.Rep. 219, 225; sections 70-19-404, -405, MCA.
Here, Marjerrisons needed to demonstrate and did demonstrate
each of these elements for a five-year period. Blasdel, 640
P.2d at 895, 39 St.Rep. at 225.
An easement, however, is by definition a nonpossessory
interest. Here, Marjerrisons held complete possession of
the parcel for the statutory period. They did not merely
impose a burden upon the Burlingame parcel for the benefit
of a dominant tenement.
In a case on all fours with this, the Florida Court of
Appeals distinguished easements from the right to occupy and
enjoy t h e land itself. I t held t h a t where, a s here, the

claimant had complete possession of the subject property,
t h e c l a i m amounted t o "a c o m p l e t e t a k i n g i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a

c l a i m of easement." P l a t t v. P i e t r a s (Fla.App. 1 9 8 0 ) , 382

So.2d 4 1 4 , 416. S e e a l s o , B l a c k v . E l k h o r n Min. Co., supra.
W e agree.

Where a prescriptive right to a servitude has the

e f f e c t of leaving t h e owner w i t h a n empty f e e t i t l e , the
s i t u a t i o n i s n o t one o f p r e s c r i p t i v e r i g h t i n t h e form of a n

easement. I t has ripened i n t o a claim f o r adverse posses-

sion. All of the requirements of a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n must
t h e n be m e t , i n c l u d i n g payment o f t a x e s . Brannon v . Lewis

a n d C l a r k C o u n t y , s u p r a , 1 4 3 Mont. a t 2 0 6 , 3 8 7 P.2d a t 7 1 0 .

Here, Marjerrisons' u s e and o c c u p a n c y o f the land did not
amount to acquisition of an easement that was merely
appurtenant to t h e dominant tenement. I t must rather be

c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s complete possession, dominion and u s e o f
the parcel to the exclusion of Burlingames and their
predecessors i n interest. I t t a k e s on t h e a s p e c t o f a f e e .

Marjerrisons first lived on the property in 1935.
T e s t i m o n y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e p l o t was u s e d f o r g a r d e n i n g .

Corn was r a i s e d . Cows and h o r s e s w e r e p a s t u r e d and w a t e r e d

there. A f e n c e i n some f o r m o r another has existed since

1935. Dr. Edwin J. Burke, a wood scientist a t the
U n i v e r s i t y o f Montana, e x a m i n e d wood f r a g m e n t s removed f r o m
t h e c o r n e r f e n c e p o s t a t t h e n o r t h e a s t c o r n e r of M a r j e r r i -
sons' property. H i s expert testimony established t h a t t h e

o r i g i n a l c o r n e r p o s t of t h e f e n c e was m o s t l i k e l y s e t a r o u n d
1916. The d i s t r i c t j u d g e v i s i t e d t h e l a n d and p e r s o n a l l y
viewed the site at the request of the parties. The use has

been open, notorious, exclusive, adverse, continuous and
uninterrupted.

One cannot gain adverse possession to land unless one
pays the taxes on the land throughout the statutory period.
Nor can one acquire a prescriptive right to property which
in effect usurps the ownership of the fee title without
paying the taxes thereon. Marjerrisons failed to do so.
They have acquired no interest in the property.
Burlingames also challenge some of the costs included
in Marjerrisons' memorandum of costs and the amendment of
the bill of costs. These issues are moot on reversal since
Burlingames now prevail and will not be assessed costs.
Reversed and remanded to the District Court for entry

of a decree consistent with this opinion.

~LA-Q$64dA,Au&,
Chief ~us'fice

We concur: