No. 12379
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F OTN
1973
GERTRUDE M. ROE,
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
ABE B. NEWMAN, a s i n g l e man; A l l t h e
h e i r s known and unknown of Abe B. Newman,
deceased; GLACIER PIPELINE COMPANY, a
Corporation and J E A N K I N G RAHN,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record :
For Appellant :
Joseph P , Hennessey argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana.
For Respondents:
Crowley, Kilbourne, Haughey, Hanson and G a l l a g h e r ,
B i l l i n g s , Montana.
Frank A. Gallagher argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana.
Submitted: March 26, 1973
Decided :
BAY- 3 19,
Filed: MAY - 3;;:1
M r . J u s t i c e Gene B , Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
P l a i n t i f f Gertrude M. Roe i n i t i a t e d t h i s q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n i n
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Yellowstone County. One of t h e named d e f e n d a n t s ,
Jean King Rahn, f i l e d a c r o s s complaint t o q u i e t t i t l e t o t h e p r o p e r t y
i n question t o her. The c a s e was t r i e d t o t h e c o u r t and w r i t t e n b r i e f s ,
e x h i b i t s and s t i p u l a t i o n s of f a c t s were submitted, The t r i a l c o u r t
found i n f a v o r of defendant and c r o s s complainant, Jean King Rahn, and
e n t e r e d an o r d e r q u i e t i n g t i t l e t o t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y i n h e r favor.
From t h a t r u l i n g and from t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r denying h e r motion f o r a
new t r i a l , Gertrude M. Woe b r i n g s t h i s a p p e a l .
The following i s an approximate diagram of t h e p r o p e r t i e s owned
by t h e l i t i g a n t s and t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y :
I Billings
--- -- 1
1
Govt. Lot 1 Govt. Lot 4
(Rahn) (Rahn)
-'I
@r
M a"flder____
e
Line
"Accretion Land"
Jean King Rahn i s t h e undisputed owner o f l o t s d e s i g n a t e d
on t h e o r i g i n a l p l a t a s Government Lot 4 l o c a t e d i n S e c t i o n 15,
Township 1 South, Range 26 East i n Yell-owstone County and Government
Lot 1 a d j a c e n t t o Lot 4 i n S e c t i o n 16.
Gertrude M. Roe i s t h e undisputed owner of an i s l a n d i n
t h e Yellowstone River i n Section 15, n e a r t h e Rahn p r o p e r t y and
s e p a r a t e d from t h e n o r t h r i v e r bank by a h i g h w a t e r channel.
The land i n d i s p u t e i s a narrow s t r i p of r i v e r bank bordered
on t h e n o r t h by a j o i n t l y maintained f e n c e l i n e over 40 y e a r s o l d
and on t h e south by t h e h i g h water channel of t h e r i v e r . Both
l i t i g a n t s f i l e d c e r t i f i c a t e s of survey. The surveys o v e r l a p con-
cerning t h e disputed s t r i p . It appears from t h e r e c o r d t h a t l i v e -
s t o c k on t h e Roe p r o p e r t y would, when t h e w a t e r l e v e l p e r m i t t e d ,
c r o s s onto t h e d i s p u t e d s t r i p of land t o g r a z e , and t h a t Mrs. Roe
o c c a s i o n a l l y c u t firewood on t h e s t r i p ,
Mrs. Rahn contends t h e fence was merely a convenience fence
e n c l o s i n g h e r l a n d s and was never acknowledged a s a boundary,
I t appears t h e o r i g i n a l e s t a b l i s h e d southern boundary of
Lot 4 was a c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s t a n c e n o r t h of t h e p r e s e n t r i v e r bank.
Mrs. Rahn c l a i m s ownership up t o t h e r i v e r bank on t h e b a s i s t h a t
t h e land a c c r e t e d t o h e r Lot 4. It a l s o appears M r s . Roe's i s l a n d
was a t some time contiguous t o t h e south bank of t h e Yellowstone
R i v e r , and t h e o l d Washington S t r e e t b r i d g e a c r o s s t h e r i v e r a b u t t e d
on t h e e a s t e r n end of t h e i s l a n d . By r e a s o n of t h i s , and h e r can-
t e n t i o n t h a t t h e d i s p u t e d a r e a i s h e a v i l y wooded, M r s . Roe claims
t h e c h a r a c t e r of t h e land i s n o t a c c r e t e d o r a l l u v i o n , b u t r a t h e r
r e s u l t e d from a v u l s i o n ,
Tax r e c e i p t s introduced by P1rs. Rahn show t h a t between 1947
and 1958 s h e , o r h e r p r e d e c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t , paid t a x e s on Lot
4 and Lot 1 and on 30 a c r e s of "accrued l a n d along r i v e r " . Between
1959 and 1969 t h e 30 a c r e s of "accrued land along r i v e r " was a s s e s s e d
only t o Lot 1 i n S e c t i o n 1 6 , b u t were p a i d by Mrs. Rahn. Mrs. Roe
made no c l a i m t o payment o f t a x e s on t h e d i s p u t e d s t r i p p r i o r t o
1970, b u t i n 1970 and subsequently, both p a r t i e s p a i d t a x e s i n con-
f o r m i t y with t h e i r overlapping surveys.
Mrs. Rahn pointed o u t i n h e r chain of t i t l e mesne convey-
ances and q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n s which purported t o e s t a b l i s h t i t l e
t o and convey "accrued land" extending t h e southern boundary of
Lot 4 down t o t h e r i v e r bank,
M r s . Roe s p e c i f i e s t h r e e assignments o f e r r o r :
1. The t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n i t s f i n d i n g of f a c t No. 1 i n
h o l d i n g t h a t t h e l a n d s i n q u e s t i o n had a c c r e t e d t o t h e land o f
defendant and counterclaimant Jean King Rahn.
2. The t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n i t s f i n d i n g of f a c t No. 2
h o l d i n g t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f Gertrude M e Roe had no c l a i m t o t h e
land i n d i s p u t e ,
3. The c o u r t e r r e d i n d i s m i s s i n g p l a i n t i f f Gertrude M.
~oe'smotion f o r a new t r i a l .
Assignment of e r r o r No. I, The r e c o r d shows t h e d i s p u t e d
s t r i p i s n o t p h y s i c a l l y contiguous t o t h e p r o p e r t y owned by Mrs.
Roe, b u t i s s e p a r a t e d from i t by t h e high w a t e r channel of t h e r i v e r .
The d i s p u t e d s t r i p i s p h y s i c a l l y contiguous t o p r o p e r t y claimed
by M r s . Rahn by r e a s o n of a c c r e t i o n . For purposes of l e g a l
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of r i p a r i a n landowners, t h e Yellowstone River a t
t h i s p o i n t i s considered t o be a n a v i g a b l e waterway. Section
67-712, R.C.M, 1947, provi-des:
11
Boundaries by water. Except where t h e g r a n t under
which t h e l a n d i s h e l d i n d i c a t e s a d i f f e r e n t i n t e n t ,
t h e owner of t h e l a n d , when i t b o r d e r s on a n a v i g a b l e
l a k e o r stream, t a k e s t o t h e edge o f t h e l a k e o r
stream a t low-water mzrk; when i t b o r d e r s upon any o t h e r
w a t e r , t h e owner t a k e s t o t h e middle of t h e l a k e o r
stream. 11
S e c t i o n 67-302, R,C.M. 1947, provides t h a t t h e s t a t e o f
Montana i s t h e owner of t h e land underlying navigable waterways,
and i n t h e event of an a v u l s i v e change i n t h e c o u r s e of t h e n a v i g a b l e
waterway t h e s t a t e i.s e n t i t l e d t o t h e land p r e v i o u s l y occupied by
t h e watercourse, United S t a t e s v. Eldredge, 33 F.Supp. 337, The
1878 W.W. deLacy government survey i n d i c a t e s t h e i s l a n d owned by
Mrs. Roe was. a t some time, contiguous t o t h e south bank of t h e
Yellowstone River. The i s s u e of p o s s i b l e s t a t e land c l a i m s under
an abandoned r i v e r b e d t h e o r y was n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y developed by t h e
l i t i g a n t s t o permit f u r t h e r comment i n t h i s opinion on t h a t p o i n t .
Concerning t h e l e g a l presumptions of "accretion" v e r s u s
tI avulsion", 65 C.J.S. Navigable Waters $ 8 6 ( c ) , s t a t e s i n p e r t i n e n t
part :
"1n t h e event of a d i s p u t e a s t o whether land changes
r e s u l t e d from a v u l s i o n o r o t h e r w i s e , t h e presumption
i s t h a t i t r e s u l t e d from a c c r e t i o n o r e r o s i o n ; and t h e
land concededly l y i n g between r i p a r i a n l o t s , a s surveyed
by t h e government, and t h e p r e s e n t bank o f a stream w i l l
be presumed t o be t h e r e s u l t of a c c r e t i o n and n o t of
a v u l s i o n , One c l a i m i n g a change was by a v u l s i o n r a t h e r
than by a c c r e t i o n h a s t h e burden of proving t h e a v u l s i o n . I I
See: Dartmouth College v. Rose, 257 Iowa 533, 133 N.W.2d 687;
J o p l i n v. Kitchens, 87 I d a , 530, 394 P.2d 313.
However, t h i s i s n o t t o s a y t h a t t h e r e i s no burden o f proof
a s concerns claimed a c c r e t i o n s . 65 C.J.S. Navigable Waters 5 85(b)
states:
11The p a r t y claiming a c c r e t i o n s must prove h i s r i g h t
t h e r e t o by a preponderance of t h e evidence."
See: McCafferty v , Young, 144 Mont. 385, 397 P,2d 96.
I t appears t h a t Mrs. Rahn merely r e l i e d on t h e presumption
f a v o r i n g a c c r e t i o n over a v u l s i o n and Mrs. ~ o e ' sf a i l u r e t o a f f i r -
matively prove a v u l s i o n . Mrs. Rahn d i d n o t c a r r y t h e burden of
proving h e r r i g h t t o t h e claimed a c c r e t i o n s o r even t h e f a c t of
accretion,
Concerning t h e meander l i n e s appearing i n t h e e a r l y govern-
ment surveys of t h e a r e a , t h i s Court s t a t e d a g e n e r a l r u l e i n
Faucett v. Dewey Lumber Co., 82 Mont. 250, 257, 266 P 5 646:
he g e n e r a l r u l e adopted by s t a t e and f e d e r a l
c o u r t s i s t h a t meander l i n e s r u n i n surveying
f r a c t i o n a l p o r t i o n s of p u b l i c l a n d s bordering upon
navigable bodies of w a t e r a r e n o t r u n a s boundaries
of t h e t r a c t , b u t f o r t h e purpose of d e f i n i n g t h e
s i n u o s i t i e s of t h e banks of t h e l a k e o r r i v e r , i n
o r d e r t o a s c e r t a i n t h e e x a c t q u a n t i t y of t h e upland
t o b e charged f o r , The t i t l e of t h e g r a n t e e i s n o t
l i m i t e d t o such meander l i n e s ; t h e w a t e r s themselves
and n o t t h e meander l i n e s c o n s t i t u t e t h e r e a l boundary.
[ C i t i n g c a s e s 1, I I
Bowever, Eldredge demonstrates an exception t o t h i s g e n e r a l
r u l e by t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of s e c t i o n 67-1518, R.C.M. 1947:
II
A g r a n t i s t o b e i n t e r p r e t e d i n f a v o r of t h e
g r a n t e e , except t h a t a r e s e r v a t i o n i n any g r a n t ,
and every g r a n t by a p u b l i c o f f i c e r o r body, a s
such, t o a p r i v a t e p a r t y i s t o be i n t e r p r e t e d
i n f a v o r of t h e g r a n t o r . ?I
Here, i t was never shown t h a t t h e s o u t h e r n boundary of Lot 4
was e s t a b l i s h e d by r e f e r e n c e t o a meander l i n e appearing on a
survey. Rather i t appears t h a t t h e southern boundary of Lot 4
was e s t a b l i s h e d along a slough o r d i t c h running southwesterly be-
tween t h e e a s t and west boundaries of Lot 4 ; j o i n i n g t h e e a s t
boundary a t a p o i n t 1850 f e e t south of t h e n o r t h boundary of S e c t i o n
15, and j o i n i n g t h e west boundary a t a p o i n t 2305 f e e t south of t h e
n o r t h boundary of S e c t i o n 15, From a survey prepared f o r Mrs,
Rahn i n 1969, i t appears t h e e a s t boundary of Lot 4 , i n c l u d i n g
II
a c c r e t e d " land t o which s h e claims ownership, i s 2501,9 f e e t i n
l e n g t h , extending from t h e r i v e r bank t o t h e n o r t h boundary of
S e c t i o n 15. This i s an e x t e n s i o n of 651.9 f e e t from t h e o r i g i n a l
p l a t of Lot 4.
Tax r e c e i p t s introduced by Mrs, Rahn show t h a t between 1947
and 1958 t a x e s were p a i d by h e r o r h e r predecessors on 30 a c r e s
o f "accrued land along r i v e r " a s s e s s e d j o i n t l y t o a d j a c e n t Lots 1
and 4. Then, between 1959 and 1969 t h e assessment f o r 30 a c r e s
of "accrued land" was a t t a c h e d e n t i r e l y t o Lot 1 i n S e c t i o n 16,
excluding Lot 4 i n S e c t i o n 15. The l i t i g a n t s a r e i n d i s p u t e a s
t o t h e r e a s o n f o r t h i s change i n assessment. Mrs. Rahn contends
h e r undisputed ownership i s i n S e c t i o n s 15 and 16; t h a t t h e r i v e r
f r o n t a g e i n S e c t i o n 15 i s 1320 f e e t and t h a t t h e r i v e r f r o n t a g e
i n S e c t i o n 16 i s 200 f e e t ; t h e d i s p u t e d s t r i p i s i n S e c t i o n 15.
She f u r t h e r contends t h e change i n assessment of t h e "accrued"
].and between 1959 and 1969 was due t o a t r a n s c r i p t i o n e r r o r be-
cause i t was p h y s i c a l l y impossible t o have 30 a c r e s of "accrued" land
i n S e c t i o n 16,
M r s . Roe d i s a g r e e s w i t h Mrs. R.ahnls c o n t e n t i o n . However,
she does n o t f u l l y e x p l a i n on what b a s i s . She does c l a i m t h a t
under t h e o r i g i n a l g r a n t i n Mrs. ~ a h n ' sc h a i n of t i t l e t h e south
boundary was placed along a d i t c h o r slough l y i n g c o n s i d e r a b l y
n o r t h of t h e river bank ( i n v o l v i n g a much l a r g e r land a r e a than
t h e s t r i p which i s a c t u a l l y i n d i s p u t e ) , Mrs. Roe contends
t h a t subsequent i n t e r v e n i n g q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n s and p r o p e r t y
t r a n s f e r s by warranty deed, appearing i n t h e Rahn c h a i n of t i t l e ,
would be i n e f f e c t u a l i n extending t h e a r e a of t h e o r i g i n a l Lot 4
down t o t h e r i v e r bank, even though t h e y purported t o do so.
Under t h i s c o n t e n t i o n , t i t l e t o t h e d i s p u t e d s t r i p , and indeed
a c o n s i d e r a b l y l a r g e r s t r i p , i s n o t i n e i t h e r of t h e l i t i g a n t s ,
but r a t h e r i n e i t h e r t h e f e d e r a l o r s t a t e government. For example,
if i t were shown t h a t t h e land c o n f i g u r a t i o n i s now s u b s t a n t i a l l y
t h e same a s when o r i g i n a l l y p l a t t e d , and no a c c r e t i o n o r a v u l s i o n
took p l a c e , t h e f e d e r a l government could a s s e r t c l a i m t o t h e
s e c t i o n of r i v e r bank ].and n o t conveyed i n t h e o r i g i n a l g r a n t . Or,
i.f a v u l s i o n was proved and i t was shown t h e land i n q u e s t i o n was
p r e v i o u s l y t h e Yellowstone River bed, t h e s t a t e could a s s e r t c l a i m
t o the land,
The r u l e appears w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t p o s s e s s i o n , occupancy
o r use, whether a d v e r s e o r f o r whatever l e n g t h of t i m e , cannot
s e c u r e t i t l e a s a g a i n s t t h e government, Bode v. R o l l w i t z , 60
Mont. 481, 199 P. 688; lJnited S t a t e s v , Eldredge, supra.
The i s s u e s r a i s e d by Mrs. Roe c r e a t e a dilemna which i s
n o t f u l l y o r s a t i s f a c t o r i l y answered by M r s . Rahn. Mrs. Rahn's
c o n t e n t i o n s concerning payment a f t a x e s on 30 a c r e s of "accrued"
land and t h e r e l a t e d claimed t r a n s c r i p t i o n mistake; t h e mesne
conveyances by warranty deed p u r p o r t i n g t o convey t h e t r a c t of
II
accrued" land between h e r l o t s and t h e r i v e r ; and t h e i n t e r v e n i n g
q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n s p u r p o r t i n g t o confirm t i t l e t o t h e t r a c t be-
tween h e r l o t s and t h e r i v e r beg t h e r e a l i s s u e s : (1) What was t h e
s o u t h e r n boundary of Lots 1 and 4 under t h e o r i g i n a l land g r a n t
by t h e United S t a t e s Government? ( 2 ) Regardless of t h e "common
d e s i g n a t i o n " of t h e land between Lots 1 and 4 and t h e r i v e r , what
i s i t s a c t u a l h i s t o r y and g e o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r ?
I n summary, i t appears both l i t i g a n t s p o i n t t o weaknesses
i n t h e i r adversary's t i t l e claim, but f a i l t o e s t a b l i s h the strength
~ f t h e i r own, Consequently, we f i n d some m e r i t i n Mrs, ~ o e ' sf i r s t
assignment of e r r o r . W s e e nothing i n t h e record which conclu-
e
s i v e l y proves t h a t Mrs. Rahn has t i t l e t o a l l t h e "commonly d e s i g -
n a t e d a c c r e t e d land" a d j o i n i n g h e r l o t s and b o r d e r i n g on t h e
r i v e r , o r even t h a t t h e land was, i n f a c t : a c c r e t e d .
Assignment of e r r o r No, 2 , W f i n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t was
e
c o r r e c t i n holding t h a t Mrs. Roe had proven no claim t o t h e d i s p u t e d
strip, She had not s a t i s f i e d t h e requirements of s e c t i o n s 93-2506
through 93-2513, R,C.PI, 1947; nor d i d she demonstrate v a l i d c o l o r
of t i t l e , She merely, as we have hereinabove d i s c u s s e d , demon-
s t r a t e d weakness i n t h e c l a i m of M r s . Rahn.
Assignment of e r r o r No. 3 . W hold t h a t a motion f o r a
e
new t r i a l i s m e r i t o r i o u s where, a s h e r e , a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of f a c t
was made which was erroneous o r n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y supported by
t h e evidence b e f o r e t h e c o u r t . S e c t i o n s 93-5601 through 9 3 - 5 6 0 4 ,
R.C.M. 1947,
The d e c i s i o n and o r d e r of t h e t r i a l c o u r t a r e r e v e r s e d .
T h e cause i s remanded f o r f u r t h e r proceedings n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t
>iith t h i s opinion.
/i Associate J u s t i c e 4
/ pief Justice
A s oci.ate J u s t i c e s . /
/, 3