NOTT v BOOKE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 80-406 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 LYLE NOTT AND ODEAL NOTT , Plaintiffs and Respondents, GLEN BOOKE and VICKY BOOKE, husband and wife, and JACK D. HEIDEMA, JOHN A. HEIDEMA, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Carbon. Honorable William J. Speare, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Swandal, Douglass & Swandal, Livingston, Montana Berger, Sinclair and Nelson, Billings, Montana For Respondents: Holmstrom, Dunaway and West, Billings, Montana Submitted on briefs: July 2, 1981 Decided: September 11, 1981 Mr. J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . L y l e and Odeal N o t t , p l a i n t i f f s and r e s p o n d e n t s , b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n t o q u i e t t i t l e t o c e r t a i n p r o p e r t y i n Carbon County, Montana. A summary judgment was g r a n t e d a g a i n s t t h e N o t t s i n f a v o r of t h e d e f e n d a n t s and a p p e l l a n t s , Glen Booke, Vicky Booke, John A. Heidema and J a c k D . v . Booke ( 1 9 7 9 ) , , Mont. Heidema. I n Nott 598 P.2d 1137, 36 St.Rep. 1542, t h i s C o u r t r e v e r s e d t h a t judgment and remanded t h e c a s e t o D i s t r i c t Court f o r a f u l l hearing. Pursuant t o t h a t decision, t h e D i s t r i c t Court s i t t i n g with a jury returned a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of t h e N o t t s . From t h a t judgment t h e Heidemas a p p e a l e d . Appellants r a i s e t h r e e issues: 1. Does i n s t r u c t i o n no. 8 w a r r a n t a new t r i a l b e c a u s e i t i n c o r r e c t l y s t a t e s t h e law and p r e j u d i c e s d e f e n d a n t s ' rights? I n s t r u c t i o n no. 8 provided: "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t i f you f i n d t h a t a n agreement e x i s t e d between L y l e N o t t and t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' p r e d e c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t , John and Genevieve Shupak, t h a t t h e d i s p u t e d s t r i p of l a n d l a y w i t h a n a g r e e d upon o r f i x e d boundary, o r t h a t an agreement e x i s t e d between t h e N o t t s and Shupaks, t h a t extended t h e boundary l i n e between t h e i r properties t o include the disputed portion of l a n d up t o t h e e x i s t i n g f e n c e l i n e , t h e n you must f i n d f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f . " 2. Does t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o g i v e d e f e n d a n t s ' proposed i n s t r u c t i o n no. 5 prejudice the defendants' r i g h t s b e c a u s e i t i s a c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t of t h e law and was needed t o balance the o t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s ? D e f e n d a n t s ' proposed i n s t r u c t i o n no. 5 s t a t e d : "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 b e 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 i s supposed l i n e , b u t must conform t o t h e t r u e l i n e when a s c e r t a i n e d . " 3. Can p l a i n t i f f s r e c o v e r a l l c o s t s of a s u r v e y which c o v e r e d t h e i r e n t i r e p r o p e r t y r a t h e r t h a n merely t h e d i s p u t e d area? The d i s p u t e i n v o l v e s t h e s t r i p of l a n d l o c a t e d between N o t t s ' and Booke-Heidemas' property. They a r e a d j a c e n t landowners i n Carbon County, Montana, t h e i r l a n d a d j o i n i n g a t the Notts' s o u t h e r n and Booke-Heidemas' northern boundaries. The N o t t s ' p r o p e r t y i s d e s c r i b e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r deed a s : "The North Half of t h e Southwest Q u a r t e r (N1/2 SW1/4) , t h e Southwest Q u a r t e r of t h e Southwest Q u a r t e r (SW1/4 SW1/4), L o t 9 and t h e North 19 f e e t o f L o t s 10 and 11, a l l l o c a t e d i n S e c t i o n F o u r , Township S i x S o u t h , Range 23 E a s t , M.P.M." The Bookes purchased t h e i r l a n d i n 1976 from t h e Heidemas. The l a n d was o r i g i n a l l y owned by John and Genevieve Shupak. The l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y i s d e s c r i b e d a s : " T r a c t A of C e r t i f i c a t e of Survey No. 885, s i t u a t e d i n L o t s 1 0 and 11, S e c t i o n 4 and L o t 2 , S e c t i o n 9, Township 6 S o u t h , Range 23 E a s t , M.P.M." The a r e a i n d i s p u t e i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1950 f e e t i n l e n g t h , 68 f e e t i n w i d t h on t h e e a s t end, 38 f e e t i n w i d t h on t h e w e s t end, and s l i g h t l y o v e r two a c r e s i n t o t a l a r e a . I t i s a l s o e n c l o s e d by a boundary l i n e f e n c e which was c o n s t r u c t e d by N o t t s i n 1946. The N o t t s c l a i m t i t l e t o t h e s t r i p of l a n d under a deed e x e c u t e d i n 1946 t o L y l e B. N o t t and h i s t h e n s p o u s e , R o s i a N o t t , from t h e Booke-Heidemas' p r e d e c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t , John and Genevieve Shupak. I n 1946, t h e N o t t s employed William Burke t o c o n d u c t a s u r v e y of t h e boundary l i n e between t h e i r p r o p e r t y and t h e S h u p a k ' s , whereupon a f e n c e was c o n s t r u c t e d by t h e N o t t s a l o n g t h e l i n e a s l a i d o u t by Burke. After the construction of t h e f e n c e , however, t h e Shupaks d i s a g r e e d a s t o t h e c o r r e c t placement of t h e f e n c e and boundary l i n e . This, i n t u r n , l e d t o t h e l a n d b e i n g r e s u r v e y e d by Burke, who d i s c o v e r e d a n e r r o r i n h i s c a l c u l a t i o n s and d e t e r m i n e d t h e p r o p e r boundary l i n e t o be 19 f e e t n o r t h of t h e f e n c e . To s e t t l e t h e d i s p u t e , t h e Shupaks e x e c u t e d a deed f o r good c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h e N o t t s conveying t h e n o r t h 19 f e e t of L o t s 1 0 and 11. The p a r t i e s t h e r e a f t e r occupied t h e i r l a n d s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e boundary f e n c e . During t h i s t i m e , t h e N o t t s c u l t i v a t e d t h e l a n d , c o n s t r u c t e d f e n c e s and c o r r a l s f o r l i v e s t o c k and b u i l t a c o n c r e t e i r r i g a t i o n flume n e x t t o t h e f e n c e and upon t h e l a n d which i s t h e s u b j e c t of t h i s d i s p u t e . Notts w e r e a l s o a s s e s s e d and have p a i d t a x e s upon t h e i r l a n d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e d e s c r i p t i o n on t h e deed s i n c e 1946. Bookes purchased t h e i r l a n d from Heidemas i n 1976. To comply w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e S u b d i v i s i o n and P l a t t i n g A c t , a c e r t i f i c a t e of s u r v e y was made a f t e r t h e p u r c h a s e . T h i s s u r v e y , which was conducted i n 1977, c r e a t e d a f u r t h e r d i s c r e p a n c y between t h e boundary f e n c e and B u r k e ' s second survey, giving rise t o t h e p r e s e n t d i s p u t e . N o t t s a r g u e t h a t t h e y have a c q u i r e d t i t l e by s a t i s f y i n g a l l t h e e l e m e n t s of a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n , i n c l u d i n g t h e r e q u i r e ment t o pay a l l t a x e s on t h e l a n d a s s e t o u t i n s e c t i o n 7019-411, MCA, which p r o v i d e s : "OCCUPANCY AND P Y E T O F TAXES NECESSARY TO PROVE A MN ADVERSE POSSESSION. I n no c a s e s h a l l a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n s b e c o n s i d e r e d e s t a b l i s h e d under t h i s code u n l e s s i t b e shown t h a t t h e l a n d h a s been o c c u p i e d and c l a i m e d f o r a p e r i o d of 5 y e a r s c o n t i n u o u s l y and t h e p a r t y o r p e r s o n s , t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s , a n d g r a n t o r s have d u r i n g s u c h p e r i o d p a i d a l l of t h e t a x e s , s t a t e , c o u n t y , o r m u n i c i p a l , which have been l e g a l l y l e v i e d and a s s e s s e d upon s a i d land. " I n t h i s C o u r t ' s p r e v i o u s o p i n i o n , a t 598 P.2d 1139, w e stated: ". . . where a boundary l i n e h a s been a g r e e d upon o r f i x e d b e c a u s e of t h e u n c e r t a i n t y of t h e p a r t i e s a s t o t h e t r u e boundary and t h e deed d e s c r i p t i o n d o e s n o t i n c l u d e t h e d i s p u t e d l a n d , t h e payment of t a x e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e deed d e s c r i p t i o n d o e s cons t i t u t e a payment upon such l a n d f o r t h e purpose of satisfying the statute. Townsend v . Kouk01, 148 Mont. a t 8; 416 P.2d a t 536." F u r t h e r , t h e o p i n i o n c o n t a i n e d t h e f o l l o w i n g comments r e l a t i v e t o t h e f a c t u a l i s s u e t o be decided: "The q u e s t i o n of f a c t which i s most c r u c i a l t o a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e i s s u e f a c i n g t h i s C o u r t , t h e n , i s whether an agreement e x i s t e d between a p p e l l a n t s and r e s p o n d e n t s , o r t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t , t h a t t h e d i s p u t e d s t r i p of l a n d l a y w i t h i n a n a g r e e d upon o r f i x e d boundary." T h i s i s s u e was s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y , and i n a c c o r d a n c e with i t s findings, t h e D i s t r i c t Court entered a decree q u i e t i n g t i t l e t o t h e disputed s t r i p t o t h e Notts. Bookes and Heidemas f i l e d motions c o n t e s t i n g t h e s u r v e y e x p e n s e s , which motions were d e n i e d . j udgmen t Heidemas now a p p e a l t h e e n t i r e . I n s t r u c t i o n no. 8 was o b j e c t e d t o a t t r i a l on t h e b a s i s t h a t i t was n o t a c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t of t h e law. According t o Rule 51, M.R.Civ.P., . . "INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY-OBJECTION.. Objections made s h a l l s p e c i f y and s t a t e t h e p a r t i c u l a r grounds on which t h e i n s t r u c t i o n i s o b j e c t e d t o and i t s h a l l n o t be s u f f i c i e n t i n s t a t i n g t h e ground of s u c h o b j e c t i o n t o s t a t e generally t h e i n s t r u c t i o n does n o t s t a t e t h e law o r i s a g a i n s t t h e law, b u t s u c h ground of o b j e c t i o n s h a l l s p e c i f y p a r t i c u l a r l y wherein t h e i n s t r u c t i o n i s i n s u f f i c i e n t o r does n o t s t a t e t h e law, o r what p a r t i c u l a r c l a u s e t h e r e i n i s o b j e c t e d t o ... I1 Objection t o an i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t i t i s an i n c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t of t h e law w i t h o u t s p e c i f y i n g t h e d e f e c t h a s l o n g been c o n s i d e r e d a n i n s u f f i c i e n t o b j e c t i o n and w e w i l l n o t r e v i e w t h e a l l e g e d e r r o r o c c a s i o n e d by t h e g i v i n g of a n allegedly incorrect instruction. Brunnabend v . T i b b l e s (1926) , 76 Mont. 288 a t 303, 2 4 6 P . 536 a t 540. That r u l e a p p l i e s here. A p p e l l a n t s a l s o a r g u e t h a t t h e y w e r e p r e j u d i c e d by t h e c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o g i v e t h e i r o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n no. 5, t h e s o u r c e of which i s Myrick v . P e e t ( 1 9 1 9 ) , 56 Mont. 1 3 a t 26, 180 P. 574 a t 579. The s t a t e m e n t from t h a t c a s e , however, p r e s u p p o s e s t h a t no v a l i d agreement a s t o t h e boundary l i n e That i s p r e c i s e l y t h e q u e s t i o n p u t b e f o r e h a s been made. t h e j u r y by i n s t r u c t i o n no. 8 and ( i n t h e words of t h i s C o u r t ) , " t h e q u e s t i o n of f a c t which i s most c r u c i a l t o a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e i s s u e f a c i n g t h i s C o u r t Booke, s u p r a , a t 1/10n t ., . . ." N o t t v. 598 P.2d 1139, 36 St.Rep. 1545. The j u r y was f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t e d by i n s t r u c t i o n no. 9 t h a t " i n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h a n a g r e e d boundary l i n e , t h e e v i d e n c e must show more t h a n mere a c q u i e s c e n c e . . .I1. Therefore, w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e j u r y was f u l l y and c o r r e c t l y i n s t r u c t e d as t o t h e law, t h a t t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e i r v e r d i c t , and t h a t no p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s resulted. On t h e i s s u e of c o s t s , a p p e l l a n t s c i t e Johnson v. J a r r e t t ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 408, 548 P.2d 1 4 4 , wherein we d i r e c t e d D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o " d e t e r m i n e whether any p a r t of t h e map and s u r v e y c o s t s b i l l e d by p l a i n t i f f s a r o s e from s u r v e y s o r maps of p l a i n t i f f s ' p r o p e r t y o u t s i d e L o t 5 o r d i d n o t p e r t a i n t o t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e 'wagon r o a d . ' Any s u c h u n n e c e s s a r y expense s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d a s c o s t s c h a r g e d t o defendant." 169 Mont. a t 417, 548 P.2d 149. The s u r v e y i n t h e c a s e a t b a r c o v e r e d t h e N o t t s ' e n t i r e property. Any p a r t t h a t d i d n o t go t o e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e d i s p u t e d boundary l i n e may have been u n n e c e s s a r y , and t h e c o s t of such e x c e s s , i f a n y , should n o t be c h a r g e d t o t h e defendants. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of s u r v e y c o s t s c h a r g e d t o d e f e n d a n t s , which s h a l l be r e d e t e r m i n e d on remand t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e d i r e c t i o n s herein. Costs t o respondent. J W Concur: e Chief J u s t i c e .............................. Justices Justice
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.
