BURLINGAME v MARJERRISON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 Missoula, Montana & Harr; Richard Volinkaty, 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, of 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 l a n d l o c a t e d i n Sanders County, Court sitting without a jury Montana. decreed that The D i s t r i c t 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- W e reverse. 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 . 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 quarter Range (SE1/4 26 the NE1/4) West, southeast quarter of Section M.P.M. 30, Marjerrisons of the Township hold northeast 20 title North, 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. risons' 3, 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 1 9 4 5 , and J a n u a r y 24, and the United held Marjer- Marjerrison parcel States patent as one tract 1962. Both t h e Burlingame p a r c e l were originally acquired by i n 1 9 0 6 by A l e x a n d e r Rhone and w e r e 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 Fred Marjerrison has s i n c e Christmas day, 1935. l i v e d on the Marjerrison parcel, for cattle tract 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 , acre SE1/4. grazing, including the five- 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 evidence District and the i n s p e c t i o n of change Court, after issues raised t h e premises, trial, at found t h a t : Marjerrisons existed; consideration had not of survey was Marjerrisons parcel for correct. had acquired grazing, It also agricultural, and an no a g r e e d b o u n d a r y acquired found, prescriptive the after and t i t l e t o t h e property through adverse possession; the all equitable and, that however, easements timber that on the 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 preponderance of t h e evidence a g a i n s t t h e findings. 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 . , 648 P.2d evidence in 7 6 6 , 7 7 2 , 39 S t . R e p . the light most S t a t e ex r e l . (1982), 1294, 1302. favorable to the Mont. W e view t h e prevailing party. Cameron 228, 587 P.2d J e n k i n s v. & 9 3 9 , 944. Cameron ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 9 Mont. 219, 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 a for specific imposed a s a b u r d e n o n l a n d . v. Department of 517 P.2d purpose servitude P a r k C o u n t y Rod a n d Gun C l u b (1973), Highways a or 1 6 3 Mont. 372, 376-377, 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 3 5 2 , 355. 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 , servient tenement or land S e c t i o n 70-17-103, law, which a burden is imposed. MCA. common on and a A t nonpossessory an interest in easement land was that did as defined not include 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 . E. Burby, S 22 a t 62-64; Real Property, s§ ments and L i c e n s e s , l , 2. the William 25 Arn.Jur.2d nonpossessory A a Ease- 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 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 , the soil, \\ B u r b y , Real P r o p e r t y , S 22 was known as a p r o f i t a p r e n d r e . a t 62-64; Black aff'd Elkhorn 859, a f f ' d 52 F. 4 1 L.Ed. 221. v. Min. Co. ( 1 8 9 6 ) , 163 U.S. Other examples of (1892), 445, 2 profits 49 F. 16 S.Ct. prendre 549, 1101, 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 or by Burby, i n a deed of prescription. supra, SS 26-31 the servient land, Thompson, a t 68-83; supra, S implied g r a n t , 135 a t P r e n t i c e v. 488-489; McKay ( 1 9 0 9 ) , 3 8 Mont. 1 1 4 , 98 P. 1081. This Court has long recognized both servitudes. Cobban R e a l t y Co. 484, 487. v. D o n l a n ( 1 9 1 5 ) , 5 1 Mont. S e e a l s o , B r a n n o n v. L e w i s 1 4 3 Mont. 200, 2 0 4 , 387 P.2d & 7 0 6 , 709. 58, 66, M. R. 149 P. C l a r k County ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 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 7017-101 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 minerals, added. ) Section 76-17-102, servitudes that MCA, may attached t o land. of r i g h t o f t a k i n g w a t e r , wood, and o t h e r t h i n g s . " (Emphasis pasture, the be defines granted and It too provides right taking other things. an easement, also of taking land held burdens even or though not as servitudes the right water, and the right of 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 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 . C l a r k County, s u p r a , Brannon v. Lewis 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, Swecker v. Dorn (1979), 181 Mont. 436, 441, 593 P.2d MCA. 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. Clark County, supra, 143 Mont. at 206, 387 P.2d at Lewis & 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. Lewis and Clark County, supra. Brannon v. The claimant must show use that is open, notorious, exclusive, adverse, continuous, and uninterrupted for the full statutory period. Montana Power Co. 895, 39 St.Rep. (1982), Mon t . , Blasdel v. 640 P.2d 889, 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 claimant had itself. I t held t h a t where, complete possession of a s here, the 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." So.2d 4 1 4 , 416. P l a t t v. P i e t r a s (Fla.App. 1 9 8 0 ) , 382 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 e f f e c t of a prescriptive has the t h e owner w i t h a n empty f e e t i t l e , leaving right to a servitude 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 sion. of All t h e n be m e t , i n t o a claim f o r adverse posses- the requirements of a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n must 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 . Marjerrisons' Here, amount to appurtenant u s e and o c c u p a n c y o f acquisition to of an easement t h e dominant tenement. c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s complete possession, the parcel to the exclusion predecessors i n interest. Marjerrisons of the land did not that was I t must merely rather be dominion and u s e o f Burlingames and their I t t a k e s on t h e a s p e c t o f a f e e . 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 1935. Dr. Edwin J. Burke, another has existed since 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. been The use has 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 paying the taxes thereon. the fee title without 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:

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.