Skip Maine state header navigation

State Search:

Agencies | Online Services | Help

Page Tools Page Tools Map addresses En español En français English

Coombs v. Grindle
Download as PDF
Back to Opinions page

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT					Reporter of Decisions
Decision:	1998 ME 230
Docket:	Wal-95-672
Submitted
 on Briefs:	September 2, 1998
Decided:	October 21, 1998

PANEL:	WATHEN, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, and SAUFLEY, JJ.

MICHAEL R. COOMBS

v.

HOYT GRINDLE et al.

DANA, J.

	[¶1]  Michael R. Coombs appeals from the judgment entered in the
Superior Court (Waldo County, Brodrick, A.R.J.) locating the boundary
between his property and that of Hoyt and Pamela Grindle.  On appeal,
Coombs argues that the trial court's boundary determination was clearly
erroneous.  We affirm the judgment.
	[¶2]  In 1883, out of his 20-acre parcel William Dodge conveyed a one-
acre lot to his son, Silas Dodge, as follows:

Beginning at a stake and stones standing on the westerly side of
the highway; thence northwesterly one hundred ninety-eight
(198) feet to a stake and stones; thence northeasterly parallel
with the town way two hundred twenty (220) feet to a stake and
stones; thence southeasterly one hundred ninety (190) feet to a
fir tree at the town way; thence southwesterly by the town way
two hundred twenty (220) feet to the first mentioned bound. 
Containing one (1) acre.

This lot was purchased by the Grindles in 1982.  Today, the monuments
referenced in the Grindles' deed -- the three "stake and stones" and the fir
tree -- have disappeared. 	
	[¶3]  William Dodge conveyed the remaining 19 acres to Gilford
Pendleton in 1891, noting that he was "reserving one acre to Silas Dodge
where his house now stands."  In 1904, Pendleton conveyed less than an
acre to Myrtle B. Smith, which lot Coombs purchased in 1977.{1}  Because
the Grindles' lot was created first and the first boundary of the Coombs's lot
is along the Grindles' lot, the senior parcel is a monument for the junior
one.{2}  See Snyder v. Haagen, 679 A.2d 510, 514 (Me. 1996) ("When a deed
describes the land conveyed by reference to an adjoining tract, the
boundary line of the adjoining tract referred to becomes a monument to
which courses, distances and quantity must yield.").
	[¶4]  Coombs hired Michael Shaffer to survey his property, and
Shaffer's findings contradicted the parties' original understanding of where
their common boundary was located.  Shaffer concluded that the line ran
through the middle of the Grindles' home.  Richard Day, a second surveyor
hired by Coombs, confirmed Shaffer's findings.
	[¶5]  The Grindles' surveyor, Daniel Small, Jr., determined the
location of the Grindles' property by examining the chains of title of both
the Coombs's and the Grindles' lots, comparing the boundaries set forth in
a 1929 deed description of land bordering the Grindles' lot, speaking with
long-time residents regarding the location of the Silas Dodge property, and
determining that an old 1 1/4 inch iron pipe in the northernmost corner of
the Grindles' lot served as a replacement monument for missing "stake and
stones." 
	[¶6]  The trial court adopted Small's reasoning and findings and
rejected the opinions of the Coombs's surveyors, finding that their boundary
determinations -- which placed the remains of Silas Dodge's home on
Coombs's property instead of on the Grindles' property -- were inconsistent
with the intent of William Dodge.  Coombs appeals from the judgment and
argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court's
boundary determinations.

				I.  BOUNDARY DETERMINATIONS	

	[¶7]  The court's determination of property boundaries as ascertained
from a deed is a question of law.   Baptist Youth Camp v. Robinson, 1998 ME
175, ¶ 7, 714 A.2d 809, 812.  Where boundaries are, however, on the face
of the earth is a question of fact, and a trial court's findings of boundary
locations are reviewed for clear error.  Id.  This Court will affirm the trial
court's findings on appeal unless "there is no credible evidence on the
record to support them . . . or . . . the court bases its findings of fact upon a
clear misapprehension of the meaning of the evidence."  Id. (quoting Rhoda
v. Fitzpatrick, 655 A.2d 357, 360 (Me. 1995)).  We find neither situation
here.
	[¶8]  First, the court concluded that Silas Dodge's home stood on the
original one-acre parcel of land conveyed to him by his father.  William's
original conveyance to Silas and his later reservation in the 1891 Pendleton
deed of "one acre to Silas Dodge where his house now stands" supports this
conclusion.  The court reasoned that the location of Silas Dodge's house
would assist the court in determining the location of the Grindles' property.  
	[¶9]  Second, the court's findings that Silas's house was 20 feet from
the Grindles's home, his barn was 70 feet from the Grindles' home, his well
was next to his barn, and a circular driveway was in front of his house were
supported by:  (1) aerial photographs from 1939, 1966, and 1972
indicating that Silas maintained two structures and a well on the land just
to the southwest of where the Grindles' home now stands; (2) Joyce Yeaton,
Silas's granddaughter, who told Small that her recollection regarding the
Dodge land was consistent with Small's determination of the location of
Dodge's house; (3) Charles Quimby, Sr., a long-time resident of Islesboro,
who testified that his recollections concerning the location of the Silas
Dodge house, barn, and well in 1914 were consistent with Small's
determinations; (4) Dale Hatch, Grindle's predecessor in title and the
great-grandson of Silas Dodge, who testified that the Dodge family house
stood on the land when he received title to the land; and (5) Bruce Van
Note, another surveyor hired by the Grindles, who testified that he
observed evidence of a well on the property just southwesterly of where the
Grindles' house now stands.
	[¶10]  Third, the court's finding that an old 1 1/4 inch iron pipe was
a replacement monument for the missing "stake and stones" in the
northernmost corner of the Grindles' property directly corroborates, and is
consistent with, the court's conclusions regarding the boundaries of the
Grindles' land.  See Theriault v. Murray, 588 A.2d 720, 722 (Me. 1991) (the
physical disappearance of a monument does not terminate its status as a
boundary marker if the court can ascertain its location through other
probative evidence).
	[¶11]  Small determined that the iron pipe was a replacement
monument for the missing "stake and stones" by reviewing other probative
evidence.  Small reviewed a 1968 survey sketch by Henry Hatch, a deceased
Islesboro surveyor, who surveyed Harlan Pendleton's land that bordered the
Grindles' land to the northeast.  Hatch's survey sketch referenced an iron
pipe as the monument for the westernmost corner of the Pendleton
property (the northernmost corner of the Grindles' property).  Small also
reviewed a 1929 deed describing land that bordered the Grindles' land
from the Grindles' easternmost corner to the Grindles' northernmost
corner, and from the northernmost corner to the Grindles' westernmost
corner.  The 1929 deed, like the 1968 Hatch survey sketch, refers to an
iron pipe in the northernmost corner of the Grindles' property.  In
addition, the 1929 deed description corresponded with Small's
determination regarding the location of the westernmost corner of the
Grindles' land, where Small found another iron pipe, lying under the
ground and covered by moss, that he considered a "disturbed monument"
but nevertheless a "clue" to the location of the westernmost corner. 
Finally, Jude Berry, the predecessor in title to Coombs's property, testified
that the Coombs's land was "pie-shaped," a finding consistent with Small's
boundary determinations and inconsistent with boundaries proposed by
Coombs's surveyors.  The court's finding that the iron pipe served as a
replacement monument was not clearly erroneous.

II.  THE 1968 SURVEY SKETCH

	[¶12]  Coombs argues that the trial court considered Hatch's 1968
survey sketch as substantive evidence after the court admitted the sketch
for the limited purpose of demonstrating that Small relied on it to prepare
his survey.  The court's opinion states that "[w]hen a man like Mr. Hatch,
who as Mr. Day noted was the surveyor for Islesboro, designated a
monument as a boundary marker on an island that is his island, it seems
unlikely that he would have been wrong."  (Emphasis in original.) 
	[¶13]  Contrary to Coombs's contention, the trial court did not rely on
the Hatch survey sketch as substantive evidence.  The court's finding
merely reflects the testimony of the expert surveyors in this case who
themselves consulted the Hatch survey sketch in determining the
boundaries.  See Department of Envtl. Protection v. Woodman, 1997 ME
164, ¶ 5, 697 A.2d 1295, 1298 (recognizing that experts may rely on
inadmissible evidence to support their opinion if it is the kind of evidence
commonly relied on by experts).  Specifically, the court relied on Day's
testimony that Hatch, in the course of his survey, designated an iron pipe as
a monument in the area near where Small found the old 1 1/4 inch pipe. 
Both Day and Small reviewed the Hatch survey sketch, discussed the survey
sketch with Hatch, and acknowledged that Hatch served as the local
Islesboro surveyor for many years.   The trial court, therefore, did not
commit error.
	The entry is:
					Judgment affirmed.
                   
                                                       
Attorney for plaintiff:

John L. Carver, Esq.
Carver, Kimball & Baiungo
10 Church Street
Belfast, ME 04915

Attorney for defendants:

Susan C. Thiem, Esq.
RR #2, Box 558
Lincolnville, ME 04849