ROE v NEWMAN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 : Filed: MAY - 3;;:1 BAY- 3 19, 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 1 Govt. Lot 1 (Rahn) Billings --- 1 -- Govt. Lot 4 (Rahn) -'I @r "Accretion Land" M a"flder____ e Line 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 . 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. cerning t h e disputed s t r i p . Both The surveys o v e r l a p con- 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 conf 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 conveyances 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's motion 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. 67-712, R.C.M, Section 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, 1878 W.W. United S t a t e s v. Eldredge, 33 F.Supp. 337, The 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: The 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." 11 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 government 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 between 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 because 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 . she does n o t f u l l y e x p l a i n on what b a s i s . However, 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 between 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 conclue 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 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 strip, through 93-2513, R,C.PI, of t i t l e , 1947; nor d i d she demonstrate v a l i d c o l o r 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 , 1947, R.C.M. 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 / pief Justice A s oci.ate J u s t i c e s . / /, 3 Associate J u s t i c e 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.