December21,2016

AmbiguityandIgnoranceinMattsonRidge,LLCv.ClearRockTitleandTicorInsuranceCompany

ByRONALDP.MURPHY,LSEMERITUS

IhavebeenrequestedtoprovideanopinionastowhetherthelegaldescriptionofconcernintheMattsonRidge,LLCv.ClearRockTitle,LLPcasewasambiguousornot.Myopinionisinfourparts.

Partonewillincludeextrinsicevidence,thedeedof1891,theincipientdeed,andreviewtheinstrumentfromthepointofvieworthepartiesatthetimeitwasexecuted.ItwilllookatthemarketabletitleissueascitedinCityofNorthMankatov.CarlstromN.W.2nd130,133(1942).Amarketabletitleis“onethatisfreefromreasonabledoubt;onethataprudentperson,withfullknowledgeofallthefactswouldbewillingtoaccept.”MattsonRidgedeemedthetitleunmarketablebecausethedescriptionwasambiguous.

Parttwoisthelocationoftheoriginaltrailortownshiproadontheground.

Partthreeisbasedonthefaceofthedocument,allofthedeedof2005,andnotjustapartofit.Thatopinionislimitedtotherulesofconstructionininterpretinginstruments,themeaningofwordsandthedifferencein,andthevaluetobeappliedto,directorycallsandlocativecalls,aswellastheintentoftheinstrument,noneofwhichwereusedbytheattorneysorthecourts.

Anyoneofthesethreemethodsissufficienttoprovethedescriptionsofrecordwerenotambiguous,andifnotambiguous,thenmarketable.

Partfourisonesurveyor’sopinionoftheambiguityandunmarketabletitlesectionsofMattsonRidge,LLCv.ClearRockTitleLLP,acasewhichisnowlaw.

PARTONE

CONSTRUINGTHEDESCRIPTIONOF1891,THEFIRSTDEED,WITHTHEAIDOFEXTRINSICEVIDENCE.PLACINGONESELFINTHESEATSWHICHWEREOCCUPIEDBYTHEPARTIESATTHETIMETHE

INSTRUMENTWASEXECUTED

DISCOVERY

Inordertoplacemyselfasnearlyaspossibleintheseatswhichwereoccupiedbythepartiesatthetimetheinstrumentwasexecuted,andtakeitbyitsfourcornersandreadit,acertainamountofdiscoverywasneededbeginninginthattimeperiod.

Imadeapartiallistofareastoexplore:

1. ReviewdeedsattheCountyRecorder’soffice;

2. LookfortownshiproadordersattheCountyAuditors;

3. VisittheCountySurveyor’sofficeandseewhattheyhaveforrecords;

4. TalktothetownshipabouttheroadtoSunriseCity;

5. Talktothepreviousownersofthepropertyabouttheirboundarylines;

6. Contactwhateverentitiestheabovevisitswouldleadto.

2

AvisittotheChisagoCountyRecorder’sOfficeprovidedacopyofthefirstdocumentnotingtheexception.AquitclaimdeedfromMorrisandBerthaCalmensentoA.C.F.DeReneedatedMay19,1891at11:00pm.ItisfiledinBookV,page176.

OnMay19,1891,theQ.C.DeedtransferredtractsoflandfromtheCalmensenstoDeRenee,allinTownship34,Range21,ChisagoCounty.

1. TheSW¼oftheSE¼ofSection23(about40acres)

2. TheSE¼oftheSE¼ofSection23(about40acres)

3. AllthatpartoftheN.halfoftheNE¼ofSection26lyingNortherlyofacertainhighway,exceptingapieceofland12rodsby18rods(about30acres);and

4. ThetractintheNWcornerofSection25;asfollows

Alsothetract,pieceorparcellyingandbeingintheaforesaidCountyofChisagocommencingintheNorthwestcorneroftheNorthwestQuarteroftheNorthwestQuarter(NW¼NW¼)ofSection25,Township34,Range21;thenceSouth30rodstointersectionoftheroadleadingfromtheCountyRoadatornearCharlesMagnuson’sPlacetoSunriseCity;thencealongthecenteroftheroadtowheresaidroadcrossesthesectionline;thencealongtheNorthlineofsaidSection24rodstotheNorthwestcornerofsaidNorthwestQuarterofsaidNorthwestQuarter(NW¼NW¼)beingtheplaceofbeginning.Herebyintendingtoconveyallthatpartofsaiddescribed40acrelotthatislyingWestoftheroadandcontainingabout2acresmoreorless.

Therearesomedifferencesbetweenthe1891deedandthe2005deed:

“TheroadleadingfromtheCountyRoadatornearCharlesMagnuson’splacetoSunriseCity”(1891).Ratherthanthe2005text“InSunriseCity.”(2005)

Indocumentsaftertheoriginal,thewordsToSunriseCityhavebeenalteredtoInSunriseCityorjustSunriseCity.TheseareScrivenererrors.Thecorrectwordingistheoriginalwordingof“ToSunriseCity”.

PARAMOUNTISINTENT,THELASTPARTOFTHEDEED

Thewords“intendingtoconveyallthatpartofsaiddescribed40acrelotthatislyingWestoftheroadandcontainingabout2acresmoreorless,”showthelocationoftheparcelwithnoambiguity.Intentisimportantastowhetherthewords“atornearCharlesMagnuson’splacetoSunriseCity”areambiguousandaninconsistentpartofthedescriptionorwhethertheymatteratall.

PERTINENTCITATIONS

Intheconstructionoftheinstrumenttheintentionsofthepartiesasexpressedbythewritings,aretobepursued,ifpossible;andwhenageneralandparticularprovisionisinconsistent,thelatterisparamounttotheformer.Soaparticularintentwillcontrolageneralonethatisinconsistentwithit.

2-24 EvidenceandProceduresforBoundaryLocation,Brown&Elridge

3

Intheorderofimportanceofconflictingdeedelements,theintentofthepartiestoaconveyance,asexpressedbythewritings,istheparamountconsiderationofthecourt,seniorrightsexcepted.

TheLegalElementsofBoundariesandAdjacentPropertiesbyRayH.Skelton,Indianapolis:TheBobbs-MerrilCompany,1930,isclearonintentandisquotedherefromMinnesotaBoundaryLawandAdjoiningLandOwnerDisputesbyC.McLaganandJ.Holt,Jr.1988.

DeterminingtheIntentionoftheParties

TheMinnesotacasesinwhichthecourtshavebeenaskedtointerpretdescriptionsallemphasizetheimportanceofascertainingtheintentionofthepartiestotheconveyance.Thesurveyororlawyerinterpretingthedescriptionistokeepinmindthefollowing:

1)Theobjectoftheconstructionofthedeedistodiscoverandeffectuatetheintentionoftheparties.

2)Theintentionistobegatheredfromthewordsoftheconveyancereadinthelightofsurroundingcircumstances.

3)Theconveyanceistobemadewithreferencetotheconditionsandstateofthepremisesatthetime,andnosubsequentchangewillinvalidateit.

4)Aconstructionwhichisconsistentwithallthetermsofthedescriptionshouldbegiven,ratherthanoneconsistentwithsomeoftheseterms.

5)Itistheintentionofthepartiesdefinitelyexpressedintheinstrumentthatcontrols.

Evenifthereisaconflictinthedescriptionitself,thecourtswillattempttoascertainwhatismeantbythedescription,ratherthandefeattheconveyance.CityofNorthMankatovCarlstrom,212Minn.32,2N.W.2d130(1942)

Theintentistoconveyallthatpartlyingwestoftheroad.Thereisnoambiguity,thereneverwas.TheroadreferredtoistheoldtrailfromWyomingtoSunriseCity.Nobodylookedatthedeedof1891.Notthelawyers,notthetitlecompaniesandnotthejudges!

Thisparticularcallinthe1891deedisworthanalysis:

“Thencesouththirty(30)rodstointersectionoftheroadleadingfromthecountryroadatornearCharlesMagnuson’splacetoSunriseCity.”

Let’slookatthephraseswhichmakeupthecall:

a.ThenceSouth30rodsto

b.Theintersectionoftheroad

c.Leadingfromthecountyroad

d.AtornearCharlesMagnuson’splace

e.ToSunriseCity

4

Thereisnopunctuationwithinthiscall.Thesellers,MorrisandBerthaCalmenson,couldnotreadorwriteintheEnglishlanguage.Thedeedwasaffixedwiththeirmarks(x)ratherthantheirsignatures.Thisisnotunusualwherepartiestoadeedareimmigrantstothiscountry.

Theycouldnothavewrittenthedeed.Theyobviouslydidrelatetheirwishestoascrivenerwhowroteoutthedeedtotheirsatisfaction.

Inthecall“ThenceSouth30rodstotheintersectionoftheroadleadingfromthecountyroadatornearCharlesMagnuson’splacetoSunriseCity:”

Allthewordstomakeacompletesentencearethere,butthelast3areoutofplace.

Placingcommasafterthewords“countyroad”and“Magnuson’splace”wouldalsohaveclarifiedthesentence.

Thewords“ToSunriseCity”donotmodifythephrase“atornearCharlesMagnuson’sPlace.”Theymodifythephrase“Leadingfromthecountyroad”whichmodifiestheword“road”thesubjectofthecallin“theintersectionoftheroad.”

Thecallthenbecomes:

“ThenceSouth30rodstotheintersectionoftheroadleadingfromthecountyroadtoSunriseCity,atornearCharlesMagnuson’sPlace.”

Thisisgrammaticallycorrectandmakessense.Addingthewords“toSunriseCity”attheendofthecallwasmostlikelyanattempttofurtherclarifythesubjectofthecall,theroad.

Further,itiscommonpracticetodescribearoadasgoingfromsomeplacetosomeplaceelse.InthiscasetheroadleadsfromtheCountyRoadtoSunriseCity.

Thewords“CharlesMagnuson’sPlacetoSunriseCity”makeslittlesense.HowdoesCharlesMagnuson’sPlacegotoSunriseCity?Placescan’tusuallygoanywhereelse.Analysisofthegrammaticalstructureofthesentenceclarifiesabitoflessthanarticulatewriting.Rememberthecourtswillattempttoascertainwhatismeantbythedescriptionratherthandefeattheconveyance.ThatdidnotoccurinMattsonRidge.

TheCountySurveyor’sOffice

NecessaryresearchtookmetotheofficeoftheChisagoCountySurveyorwhereIwashelpedbytheAssistantCountySurveyor,GaryAnderson.Iwasprovidedwiththefollowing:

1.Fromthe1888PlatBook,thesheetsonLentTownship,WyomingTownship,ChisagoLakeTownshipandSunriseTownship

2.AcopyofasurveybyHenrySwensondatedApril5,1909ofthesubjectexceptionintheNWcornerofSection25

3.Acopyofa1938AerialTopographicSurveyfromtherecordsoftheMinnesotaDepartmentofNaturalResourcesdated9/24/38(1938).ThisincludedthesiteofthisdiscussionandalotofwhatwastobecometheCarlosAveryWildlifeManagementArea

5

4.ChisagoCountyHighwayRight-of-WayPlatNo.66,sheets1and3of6,datedMay15,2009,theCountyRoadcalledoutinthedeeds.

Alloftheabovearepublicrecords.

The1888PlatBook

The1888PlatBookforChisagoCountyhadapageforLentTownship.Theownershipofthevarioustractsarenoted.Acreageisshown,housesareshown,asaretheroads,railroadsandrivers.TheroadgoingnorthfromtheCountyRoadisshown.ItcomesfromthesouthlineofSection35andleavesLentTownshipattheeastlineofSection24.It’scomingfromsomeplaceandgoingtosomeplace,asmostroadsdo.Mr.GeneOlson,atownshipsupervisor,statedthatwastheoldroadortrailfromWyomingtoSunriseCity.

Thereare3housesaroundsaidroadfromtheCountyRoadnorth.ThereisahouseonMorrisCalmenson’spropertyonthewestsideoftheroadabout400feetnorthoftheCountyRoad.ThereisahouseonC.G.Cederholm’spropertyontheeastsideofsaidroadabout300feetnorthofsaidCountyRoad.ThereisahouseonCharlesMagnuson’spropertyonthenorthsideoftheCountyRoadabout350feetwestofsaidroad.Mr.Magnusonalsoownedabout50acressouthoftheCountyRoad.The3houseswerewithinan800footradius.All3wereneighbors.

CharlesMagnusonpurchasedtheNE¼ofSection26onJuly17,1869anditwasfiledonJuly3,1871.Laterhesplititup,sellingthesouthhalftoP.J.AndersononMay2,1872andthenabout30acresofthenorthhalfnorthoftheCountyRoad,lessMr.Magnuson’shomesite,toNelsSwensononSeptember11,1876.Saidnorth30acreswaslateracquiredbyCalmenson.CharlesMagnusonretainedthepartsouthoftheCountyRoadforhimself.

WiththeinformationfromthePlatBookof1888,Mr.GeneOlson,LentTownshipBoardMemberandRoadHistorian,andthedeedof1891,CalmensontoA.C.F.DeReneewecanaccuratelysaythefollowing:

Mr.CalmensonandMr.Magnusonwereneighbors.Mr.MagnusonwasanownerofconsiderablepropertyinLentTownship,allwithinamileandahalfoftheintersectionoftheCountyRoadandtheroadtoSunriseCity.TheroadortrailfromWyomingtoSunriseCityistheroadnotedinMr.Calmenson’sdescriptionastheroadleadingfromthecountyroadtoSunriseCity.ThatiswhereCharlesMagnuson’sPlaceisanditisatorneartheroadtoSunriseCity.Thereisnoambiguityandthereneverwas.

HENRYSWENSON’SSURVEY

OnApril4of1909,HenrySwensonsurveyedtheexceptionintheNWcornerofSection25,allinTownship34,Range21,ChisagoCounty.

Mr.SwensonwasemployedtosurveythetwoacrestripinSec.25belongingtoOtis(Sec.26)andwhereMr.Otisclaimstheroadwasnotputontheline.Mr.Swensonnotesthedescriptionwasverymisleading.

Mr.Swenson’ssurveyshowedhewentsouthfromtheNEcorofSec.25,30rods(495ft.),whereheintersectedtheroadcomingfromtheCountyRoad.Hethenwentnortheasterlytoapoint24rods(396

6

ft.)eastofsaidNWcoronthenorthlineofsaidNW¼,andthence24rodswesttotheNWcorofsaidSection25.Heshowsaroadlabeled“PresentRoad”withinthetriangleandhasquestionsmarksalongthehypotenuseofthetriangular2acretract.

Thedescriptionshownonhissurveywas:

CommencingNWcornerofNW¼Section25-34-21thencesouth30rodstotheintersectionoftheroadrunningfromtheCountyRoad;thencealongcenterofroadtowheresaidroadcrossesthesectionline;thencealongthenorthline24rodstoplaceofbeginning.

Mr.Swensonshowsthepresentroaddidnotgofromapoint30rodssouthoftheNEcorofSec.25toapoint24rodseastofsaidcorner.Heshowstheroadwithinthattriangularboundarybutnotindetail.Hedoesnotincludethewords“atornearCharlesMagnuson’sPlacetoSunriseCity.”

Thewords“presentroad”indicatedthattherearechangestotheroadproposedinthefuture.

Thetrailorroaddidexistin1909.ItwaswithinthetriangularpartoftheNW¼oftheNW¼ofSection25citedinthedescriptionof1891.Mr.SwensonquestionsOtisowningeastoftheroad.Hesaidthedescriptionisverymisleadingbutdoesn’tsaywhatwasmisleading.However,heleavesout“atornearCharlesMagnuson’sPlacetoSunriseCity.”Hedoesshowtheroadasthepropertyline.

THE1938AERIALPHOTOANDMR.GENEOLSON’SCOMMENTSONTHEROADFROMWYOMINGTOSUNRISECITY.

TheCountySurveyor’sofficehadcopiesofa1938aerialphotodonefortheMinnesotaDepartmentofNaturalResources,andavailableontheirwebsite,oftheareafromtheCountyRoadthroughthenorthlineofSection25.TheaerialphotoshowsaTownshiproadfromaboutamilesouthoftheCountyRoadtoaboutamilenortheasterlyofsaidCountyRoadandanothertrailtothewestmoreorlessparallelingsaidTownshiproadnorthoftheCountyRoad.I’veshownthisphototo4or5otherLandSurveyorsandweallagreethatistheoldroadortrail.

Theoldtrailorroadexistedasof1938butithadbeenreplacedasaTownshipRoadwithanewertraveledsurfacelayingtotheeast.Itwasprobablyabandonedsinceitwasnolongerrepairedorusedbythetownship.Thenewtownshiproadfrompriorto1938totodayhasbeenacquiescedtoforover77years,andwasannexedtoChisagoCityin2005.ItisnowcalledIvywoodTrail.

Said1938DNRaerialphotoshowsatrailfromtheCountyRoadjustwestofandparallelwiththetownshiproad.Itappearsthatthetownshiproadwasstraightenedoutsomewhatandmovedabiteasterlyofthetrail.

IalsotalkedtoGeneOlson,amemberoftheLentTownshipBoardfor40years.ThetownclerkstatedthatMr.Olsonwasthepersonwhowasmostknowledgeableaboutthetownroadsandtheirhistory.

WhenIbroughtuptheroadinthenorthwestcornerofSection25,Mr.Olsonstatedthat“theroadortrailfromWyomingtoSunriseCitywasaveryearlyroadortrailanditwentthroughthatnorthwestcornerofSection25.”ItenteredLentTownshipatthesouthsideofSection35andleftattheeastsideofSection24,goingthroughoralongSections35,26,25and24.Mr.OlsonknewforafactitwentintoSunriseTownship.

7

ToMr.Olson’sknowledge,theroadthatwentthroughthetwoacreexceptionintheNWcornerofSection25,LentTownship,waspartoftheearlytrailfromWyomingtoSunriseCity.

IdiscussedLentTownshipRoadacquisitionpracticeswithMr.Olson.HesaidtheTownshipdidn’thaverecordsforalotoftheroadsortrailsintheTownship.AreviewoftheTownshipRoadordersforLentTownshipattheCo.Auditorsofficeborethatout.Thereareafewrecordsofroadacquisitionsorsurvey.TherearenosurveyoracquisitionrecordsfortheroadfromtheCountyRoadtothenorthofSection25inLentTownship.

Townshipshavetherighttomaintainandimprovetheirroads.Theycanshiftthemabit.Italsoappearsthatallthepartiesacquiescedinthatshift.

CHISAGOCOUNTYHIGHWAYRIGHT-OF-WAYPLATandthe1891DEED

ChisagoCountyHighwayRight-of-WayPlatNo.66,filedMay15,2009,asDocumentNo.A509889,isStateAidHighwayNo.19andistheCountyRoadreferredtointhe1891deed,CalmensontoDeRenee,asacertainhighwayrunningthroughsaidland(N½NE¼Sec.26)toMiddleForkandalsotheCountyRoadreferredtointhedescriptionofthe2acresintheNWcornerofSec.25.

Saiddocumentshowsthefollowing:

FromtheNWcornerofSection25,T34,R21,ChisagoCountythewestlineoftheNW¼ofSection25bearsSouth00°59’32”Eastadistanceof615.9feettoanironpipemonumentattheintersectionofsaidlineandthecenterofsaidCo.Hwy.

Thecenterlineofthepresentcityroad,IvywoodAve.,is11.75’easterlyofthesectionlineatthecountyroad.

ThecityroadbearsNorth07°41’20”Eastfromsaidcountyroadcenterline.

Thecenterofthecityroadisnolongerwhereitwasin1891or1909.Ithasshiftedeastandbeenstraightenedoutabit.Thisneweralignmentofwhatwasthetownshiproadhasbeenineffectsincebetween1938and1909.

Mr.HaroldShoberg,whosepropertyMattsonRidgepurchased,toldmehewas80yearsoldandhadlivedonthesiteallhislife.Hethoughtthetownship(nowcity)roadwasthewestpropertylineofhisland,meaningthemosteasterlyoftheroadsshowninthe1938aerialphone(IvywoodTrail).

InconcludingPartTwoofthisreportitisevidentthatadiligentinspectionofthePublicRecordandashorttalkwithanelectedLentTownshipBoardMemberwouldhavemadeclearthattherewasneveranyambiguityinthedescriptionofthetwoacreParcelintheNorthwestcornerofsaidSection25citedintheQuitClaimDeed,CalmensontoDeRenee(1891).

Anambiguousdescriptionisonewhichcanbelocatedinmorethanoneplace.Deedsshouldbeviewedwithknowledgeofthetimetheywerecreated,incourtdecisionaftercourtdecision.Considerthefollowing:

1.The1891Deedincludesawrittenintent.

2.The1891Deedusestheword“ToSunriseCity”,laterdeedsused“InSunriseCity”orjust“SunriseCity”.Theoriginalwordsprevailinallthedeeds.

8

3.The1888PlatBookofChisagoCountyincludesamapofLentTownship,whichshowstractsoflandownedbyCharlesMagnuson,M.CalmensonandC.G.Cederholmaroundsaidroadleadingfromthecountyroad.Theywereneighbors.

4.The1891deedfromCalmensontoDeRenee,whereCalmensonstatesthatsaidroadgoestoSunriseCity.Mr.Calmensonlivedontheroadandhewouldknow.

5.The1891deedfromCalmensontoDeRenee,whereCalmensonstatesthattheintersectionoftheroadfromthecountyroadtoSunriseCityisatornearCharlesMagnuson’sPlace.Mr.CalmensonwasMr.Magnuson’sneighbor.IfhesaiditwasatornearCharlesMagnuson’sPlace,itwas.The1888PlatBookshowsC.Magnuson’sPlacetobeatornearsaidintersection.

6.ThetestimonyofanelectedTownBoardMember,servingonsaidBoardfor40years,andtheirexpertintownroadhistory,statingthatsaidroadleadingnortherlyfromthecountyroadwastheoldtrailorroadfromWyomingtoSunriseCity.

7.Thedeedof1891istobeconstruedinaccordancewiththewrittenintentofthedocumentandintheeraitwascreated.

8.ThewritingsintheDeedof1891,anditsintent,carrythroughtoallfuturedeedswhereitisused.

9.Thisdescriptioncanonlybelocatedinoneplace.ItiswithinthenorthhalfofthenorthwestquarterofSection25,Township34,Range21,ChisagoCounty,Minnesota.

ItcannotbeinSunriseCity.Thereisnoambiguity.

Theabovepointsclearlyshownoambiguityoncethedescriptionisviewedwithinitseraandthroughpublicrecords.

OpposedtotheabovepointsandallotherpointspointedoutinthisreportisthetestimonyofTravisD.Stottler,AttorneyforMattsonRidgeLLCinDistrictCourtFileNo.13-CV-07-1136ofFebruary21,2008.

“ItwasdiscoveredthatthelegaldescriptionforthepropertyitselfwasambiguousandtheambiguityrelatedspecificallytoareferencethattheroadleadingfromthecountyroadatornearCharlesMagnuson’sPlaceinSunriseCitywaspartofthelegaldescription.Ithinkasthecourtcanbewellawarethatwouldleadtoambiguitiesbecause….youknow,simplyput,whoisCharlesMagnuson,whereishisplaceandwillhecontinuetobeinthatplaceforever?Clearlyitwasambiguous.”

TheaboveparagraphsumsupMr.Stottler’sargumentforambiguity.Allthathadtobedonetocheckhisargumentwastogotothepublicrecord.ThepublicrecordshowswhereCharlesMagnuson’sPlacewas.Saiddeedof1891,MagnusontoDeRenee,showsthewords“toSunriseCity”wereoriginaland“inSunriseCity”and“SunriseCity”insubsequentdeedsarescrivenererrorsanddonotfollowtheoriginalwording.Mr.StottleraskswhetherCharlesMagnusonwillbeinhisplaceforeverandimpliesthatconcepttobemandatory.Hearguesthatsomebodytoldhimitwasambiguous,soitis,andthecourtbroughtthatargument.

Thisisnotanargumentforambiguity.It’sanargumentforignorance.Wasthisanexampleofduediligence?Further,ifthatroadcanbesurveyeditisnotambiguous.

9

AlsostandingoutinoppositiontoMr.Stottlerspositionisintent,thelastpartofthedeed,of1891,andthefirstitemonthelisttoconsider.

“IntendingtoconveyallthatpartofsaiddescribedForty(40)acrelotthatislyingWestoftheroadandcontainingTwo(2)acresmoreorless.”

Withthosewordsthesellershavestatedthatthedeedlineisthecenteroftheroad,theroadasitexistedin1891.Itisamonument.Therewerenootherroadsinthattwoacre,moreorless,tractintheNorthwestQuarteroftheNorthwestQuarterofsaidSection25.

Thewrittenintentmakesclearthatalltheimportanceplacedonthedirectorycall,“atornearCharlesMagnuson’sPlacetoorinSunriseCity”inthecourtcasewasmeaningless.Thereneverwasanyambiguity.Thewrittenintentisthecontrollingfactorinthedeed,andinsubsequentusesofthedeed.

Thedeedlineisinonlyoneplace,andinnootherplace.Itcan’tbeambiguous.In1891therewasonlyoneroadortrailnorthofthecountyroadthroughtheNorthwestQuarterofsaidNorthwestQuarterofSection25,andthatwastheoldtrailorroadfromWyomingtoSunriseCitynotedbytheSeller,Calmenson,Thecenteroftheroadisthedeedline.

Thedeedof1891removedanypossibilityofambiguity.Whywasn’titutilized?

PARTTWO

LOCATINGTHEDESCRIPTIONONTHEGOUNDBYACOMPETENTSURVEYOR

FindingtheTrailfromWyomingtoSunriseCityinSection25

Aproofofnon-ambiguityiswhetherthedescriptioncanbelocatedonthegroundbysurvey.ItwasclearthatthepresentIvywoodTrailwasnottheroadleadingfromthecountyroadtoSunriseCitydescribedinthe1891deed,butanewroadreplacingthattrail.Thecenteroftheoldtrailwasthepropertylinecitedinsaiddeed.

Ifalegaldescriptionsufficientlydescribesthelandsothatitcanbelocateduponthegroundbyacompetentsurveyor,thenitisnotambiguousordefective.Curtiss&YaleCo.v.CityofMinneapolis,123Minn.344,349,144N.W.150,152(1913).Ifthesurveyor,withthedeedbeforehim,andwiththeaidofextrinsicevidence,ifnecessary,canlocatethelanddescribedandestablishitsboundaries,thelegaldescriptionissufficient.CityofNorthMankatov.Carlstrom,212Minn.32,2N.W.2d130(1942).

PartthreeistheactuallocationonthegroundoftheoldtrailfromWyomingtoSunriseCityasitranthroughthenorthwestcornerofsection25in1891.Inordertodothat,itwasnecessarytofindevidenceonthegroundofsaidoldwagontrail.Thelatestevidencewasthe1938aerialphotowhichshowedIvywoodTrailinitspresentpositionandanoldsandorgravelroadwesterlyofit.Thatevidencewas77yearsold.

OnMarch31,2015,anexperienced3personcrewdrovefromMinneapolistothesiteoftheoldtrailfromWyomingtoSunriseCityasitpassedthroughsection25ofLentTownship,inChisagoCounty,Minnesota.Thesurveycrewhadaminimumagerequirementof72yearsfromeachmember,asexperiencewasvaluedmorethanagility.DennisPurcell,licensedMinnesotalandsurveyorNo.13594wastheyoungestmemberofthecrew,andhadexperiencewitholdtrails.RonMurphy,L.S.10832,was80yearsoldandalsohadexperiencewitholdtrailsandwouldbeoutmaneuveredbyPurcelllaterinthe

10

day.JoyceMurphy,Ron’swife,wasthenavigatorandinchargeofequipmentandbandages.Thecrewhadagreatdealofcombinedexperience,someofitgood.

Oncethesitewasattainedthecrewparkedtheirvehicleinanolddrivewaywhichledtotheremainsofahomesiteinsection26,onceownedbytheCalmensonsin1891.Thescientificsurveyequipmentwasunloaded:aclothtape,apaintcan,lath,lumbercrayonandahammerwithaheavyheadwhichRonlaterapparentlylost.SinceitwasDennis’shammeritwasn’tamajorcatastrophe.

DennisandRonsetupabaselinenortherlyofCountyRoad19ontheapproximatecenterofIvywoodTrail,markingoff100footstationsuntilwepassedthenorthlineofSection25(about650feet).OurintentionwastomeasurewesterlyanumberoftimesfromthecenterofIvywoodTrailtowherewethoughttheoldtrailshouldbe.Ourreasoningwasthattheoldtrailshouldstillbethereasthelandhadnotbeendisturbedsinceithadbeenpurchasedbythestateinthelate1930’s.Further,itwasprotectedbyabuckthornthicket.Averywelldevelopedbuckthornthicket.

Itwasasweweredeterminingwhowouldventureintothebuckthornthicket,thatPurcelloutmaneuveredMurphybyplayingthebadhipcard.Hecouldn’tgointothethicketashishipswouldn’ttakehimthroughitinanuprightposition.Joycequicklystatedthatshewouldn’tknowwhatanoldtrailwouldlooklikeandalsothatthiswasnowaytotreatarmcandythathadalreadyfoundadeerskelton.

Theonlyoneleftwhowouldknowwhatanoldtrailmightlooklikethenpickedupthelath,thehammerandthetapeandstrodebravelywestward.Thefirst30feetwentwellandthenIhitthethornsandbeganmissingtheheavyjacketandglovesIleftathome,forbuckthornisnotonlyinvasive,it’smalicious.

BustingmywaythroughthebuckthornIfoundwhatIconsideredtobetheoldtrail,aflatareawhichdifferedfromthesurroundingground.ItlookedlikeanoldtrailtomeandIplantedalathinitscenterwiththestationingatIvywoodTrailandthedistancewestofitmarkedinlumbercrayon.Then,backthroughthethicket,outtothecenterofIvywoodTrailandontothenextstationwherethelath,thehammer,thetapeandIwouldheadbackintothethicket.

Ididthiseleventimes,eachtimefindingapartofthetrailwhichdifferedfromthesurroundinggroundandwhichpartswereconsistentwitheachother.Thetrailappearedtobefrom8to12feetwide.Thiswasanoldwagonroad,remember,andthewagonswerepulledbyoxenorhorses.Travelwasbyfoot,horseorwagon.Ifoundnowagonrutsasthesoilwassandandgravel,notclay.Therewerealsotreesalongthetrailwhichhadbeeninplaceformanyyears.Anytreesinthetrailwouldhavetobelessthan77yearsold,asnonewereshowninthe1938aerialphoto.

Ourpreliminarylocationsurvey,determiningwhetherornotatrailstillexisted,foundthetrailtorangefrom37to53feetfromthecenterofIvywoodTrailandalongacurve.WefoundwhatIconsidered,asdidDennis,11pointsofsolidevidenceoftheoldtrail.

SunriseCitywasplattedin1853andagainin1857.ThevillageofWyomingwasplattedin1869.Thetrailwelocatedwasnear150yearsold.

WhenIfinishedthelasttripintothethicket,Joycepointedoutthatpaymenthadbeentakeninbloodbythebuckthornformyinvasion.Botharmsandhandshadflowingscratches.WhilethebloodclottedItookcomfortinthefactthatmywoundswouldheal,butDenniswouldstillhavehisbadhips.

11

Wehadsuccessfullylocatedanancienttrail,sufficientlyforEgan,Field&Nowaktocomeoutlaterandtieittothesectionlinesandcorners.

Wehadprovenbysurveythatthelegaldescriptionof1891wasnotambiguous.Wegatheredupourequipment,exceptDennis’shammerwhichhadmostlikelywanderedoffbyitself,orbeenkidnappedbydeerticksandheadedofftotheSwedishrestaurantinLindstromforavictorycelebrationbefittingourage.

PARTTHREE

CONSTRUINGTHEDESCRIPTIONCITEDINTHEDEEDOF2005INACCORDANCEWITHTHEFOLLOWINGFOURCITIATIONS:THEMETHODUSUALLYUSEDBYTHECOURTS

PERTINENTCITATIONS

Adescriptionismadeupofaseriesofcalls.TheDefinitionofSurveyingAssociatedTerms,ACSMandASCE(1978Rev.)states:

Acallisareferenceto,orastatementof,anobject,course,distance,orothermatterofdescriptioninasurveyorgrantrequiringorcallingforacorrespondingobject,orothermatterofdescriptionoftheland.

Brown’sBoundaryControlandLegalPrinciples,FourthEdition(1995)p.273,274.

“To”isawordofexclusion.“Toastone”,“toastake”and“tothepointofbeginning”areallexamplesoftheword“to”wheredistance,area,orcoursegivenyieldtotheobjectorpointcalledfor.

Brown’sBoundaryControlandLegalPrinciples,FourthEdition(1995)p.288,289,Section11.45,clarifiessomeofthecallsinthedescriptionoftheexception.

Principle22.Aparticularintentwillbypresumptioncontrolageneralonethatisinconsistentwithit.Thisappliestocaseswherethespecificdescriptionisnotambiguous.

Directorycallsarethosethatmerelyindicatetheneighborhoodwhereinthedifferentcallsmaybefound,whereaslocativecallsarethosethatservetofixboundaries.

Particularcallsarespeciallocativecalls;generalcallsaredescriptiveordirectional.Generalcallsaremerelytodirectaperson’sattentiontothevicinityorneighborhood,whereaslocativecallsaremadewithcareandexactness.Generalcallscannotbegivenmuchcreditwheninconflictwithaparticularlocativecall.

ClarkonSurveyingandBoundaries,FourthEdition,byJohnS.Grimes,Section344,Page422states:MAYDISCARDLESSIMPORTANTCALLS.

Ifalocationhascertainmaterialcallssufficienttosupportitandtodescribetheland,othercallslessmaterialandlesscompatiblewiththeessentialcallsoftheentrymaybediscarded.ThecourtusestheRuleofCommonSenseinconstruingthelanguageusedandtheactsofman.Onsuchprinciplesthecourtwilldeterminethemeaningofthelanguageusedinthedescription.

Inconstruinginconsistentdescriptionsinthedeed,preferenceisgiventothepartmostlikelytoexpresstheintentionandastowhichthereistheleastlikelihoodofmistake.

12

Sandrettov.Wahlsten124Minn331,144NW1089(1914).

Itispropertorejectanytermsofadescriptionbywhichtheapplicationoftheprinciplesofconstructionmaybedeclaredtobeerroneousifenoughofthedescriptionremainstodescribewithcertaintythelandintendingtobeconveyed.

TheLegalElementsofBoundariesandAdjacentProperties,1930,RayH.Skelton,Section65,Page68.

Itistheintentioneffectuallyexpressed,notmerelysurmised.Thisrulecontrolsallothers.JudgeSandersonofCaliforniagraphicallyoutlinedhowthisintentionistobeascertainedwhenheruledthatinconstruinginstruments,“theonlyruleofmuchvalue–onewhichisfrequentlyshadowedforth,butseldom,ifever,expresslystatedinthebooks–istoplaceourselvesasnearlyaspossibleintheseatswhichwereoccupiedbythepartiesatthetimetheinstrumentwasexecuted;thentakeitbythefourcorners,readit.”

TheDeedof2005

TheallegedambiguityinMattsonRidgeLLCvClearRockTitleLLPandTicorTitleInsuranceCompanycasehastodowiththedescriptionofrealpropertyinChisagoCounty,Minnesota,citedindocumentno.A-460934andfiledintheofficeoftheCountyRecorderonNovember30,2005at2:35pmandnotedasExhibitAinthecourtdocuments.

TheNorth½oftheNorthwest¼ofSection25,Township34,Range21,ChisagoCounty,Minnesota,exceptinghowever,twoacres,moreorless,intheNorthwestcorneroftheNorthwest¼ofNorthwest¼ofsaidSection25,describedasfollows:CommencingattheNorthwestcornerofsaidSection25;thenceSouth30rodstotheintersectionofroadleadingfromthecountyroadatornearCharlesMagnuson’splaceinSunriseCity;thencealongthecenteroftheroadtowheresaidroadcrossesthesectionline;thencealongtheNorthlineofsaidSection,24rodstotheNorthwestcornerofsaidNorthwest¼ofNorthwest¼ortoplaceofbeginning.

Exceptingtherefrom,allthatpartoftheNorthwest¼ofNorthwest¼,Section25,Township34,Range21,ChisagoCounty,Minnesota,whichliesSoutherlyofStateAidRoadNo.19andEasterlyofStateAidRoadNo.80.

ThetractoflanddescribedisintheNorthHalfoftheNorthwest¼ofSection25,Township34,Range21,ChisagoCounty,Minnesota.

Thatmeansthatitisheldwithintheboundaryofthatfinitetractandnowhereelse.

Itcan’tbeinSunriseCity.

Thereisanexceptiontothedescription:Excepting2acres,moreorless,intheNorthwestcorneroftheNorthwest¼oftheNorthwest¼ofsaidSection25.

TheexceptioniswhollywithinsaidNorthwest¼ofsaidNorthwest¼andnowhereelse.

Itcan’tbeinSunriseCity.

Theexceptionisthendescribedwiththefollowingcalls:

13

“CommencingattheNorthwestcornerofsaidSection25;”

TheNorthwestcornerofsaidSection25isamonumentofthePublicLandSurvey.SaidN.W.cornerwasoriginallysetin1849byU.S.Gov’tSurveyor,HenryMadden,whilesubdividingTownship34,Range21,oftheFourthPrincipleMeridian.

Thenextcallis:

“Thencesouth30rodstotheintersectionofaroadleadingfromtheCountyRoadatornearCharlesMagnuson’splaceinSunriseCity;”

FromtheNorthwestcornerofsaidSection25,thecallextendstotheSouth30rods(495’)totheintersectionofaroadfromtheCountyRoad.

SouthishereusedasageneraldirectiontotheintersectionoftheroadfromtheCountyRoad.HaditbeenmeanttobealongthewestlineoftheNorthwestQuarteroftheNorthwestQuarteritwouldhavebeensonoted.Thewords“to”showsthecallistosaidintersectionexcludingdistanceanddirection.WemaybewithinsaidNorthwest¼oftheNorthwest¼orwemightbeabitwest.

Theintersectionisthennotedas,“AtornearCharlesMagnuson’splaceinSunriseCity.”Thewords“AtornearCharlesMagnuson’splaceinSunriseCity”areadirectorycall.Theymerelyindicatetheneighborhoodwherethedifferentcallsinthedescriptionmaybefound.

Alltheothercallshavebeenlocativecalls.

Directorycallsarenotnecessarytodefinetheboundaries.Locativecallsare.

SunriseCityisanunincorporatedvillageinSections4and5ofSunriseTownship,about9milesnorthand2mileseastoftheNorthwestcornerofsaidSection25.ItisnotintheNorthwest¼oftheNorthwest¼ofSection25.

IfCharlesMagnuson’splaceisinSunriseCityandnotwithinorneartheNorthwest¼ofsaidNorthwest¼,howcansaidphraseapplytothisdescription?ThelandcitedisinsaidSection25.I’vewalkedonit.

Theproperthingtodoistoeithertakeitoutofthedescriptionentirelyandseeifthedescriptionworkswithoutitorclarifyit.Inordertoclarifyit,wewouldneedtoexaminetheincipientdescriptionandthe1888platbook,whichwedidinpartone.

Thenextcallis:

“Thencealongthecenteroftheroadtowheresaidroadcrossesthesectionline,”

Thiscenteroftheroadistheeasterlylineoftheexception.ItrunsfromsaidIntersectioninaNortheasterlydirectiontothenorthlineofsaidSection25.TheroadwasexistingatthetimethisfirstexceptiontotheNorthwest¼oftheNorthwest¼ofSection25wasfiledattheRecordersOfficein1891.TheroadisamonumentandthenorthlineofsaidNorthwest¼oftheNorthwest¼isaRecordMonument.

Theexceptionliesbetweenthreemonuments:

1. TheW.lineoftheNW¼NW¼,arecordmonument

14

2. Theexistingroad,aphysicalmonument

3. TheN.lineofsaidNW¼NW¼,arecordmonument

Anditsplaceofbeginningisanothermonument.TheroadiswithintheNorthwest¼oftheNorthwest¼ofSection25,asareallfourmonuments.

TheLastCallis:

“ThencealongthenorthlineofsaidSection24rods(396’)totheNorthwestcornerofsaidNorthwest¼oftheNorthwest¼ortotheplaceofbeginning.”ThistooiswithinsaidNW¼oftheNW¼ofSection25.Andsoendstheparticularcallsforthatexception,allwithintheNW¼oftheNW¼ofSection25,andnowhereelse.

Themaintractdescriptionisclearandapparentlyunderstoodbyall:TheN½oftheNW¼ofSection25,Township34,Range21,ChisagoCounty.

Theparticularsoftheexceptionareclear:itisboundedbythreemonuments;thewestlineofsaidSection25,theexistingroad,andthenorthlineofsaidSection25.Itisdefinedbylocativecalls,whicharespecific.

Takingoutthedirectorycalls,whicharenotnecessarytodefinetheboundaries,andholdingwiththelocativecallsaswrittenthedescriptionis:

TheNorth½oftheNW¼ofSection25,Township34,Range21,ChisagoCounty,Minnesota,exceptinghowever,2acres,moreorless,intheNWcorneroftheNW¼oftheNW¼ofSection25,describedasfollows:CommencingattheNWcornerofsaidSection25;Thencesouth30rodstotheintersectionofroadleadingfromtheCountyRoad;thencealongthecenteroftheroadtowheresaidroadcrossesthesectionline;thencealongthenorthlineofsaidSection24rodstotheNWcornerofsaidNW¼ofNW¼ortotheplaceofbeginning.

ExceptingtherefromallthatpartoftheNW¼ofNW¼,Section25,Township34,Range21,ChisagoCounty,Minnesota,whichliessoutherlyofStateAidRoadNo.19andeasterlyofStateAidRoadNo.80.

Thereisnoambiguityinthelocativecallsinthisdescription.Thepropertycanbesurveyed.Allthathastobeunderstoodisthedifferencebetween,andtheimportancegivento,directionalcallsandlocativecalls.

InreadingthetranscriptsofthetrialIfoundnoreferencetothefirstdeedcreatingtheexception.HowcanwemakereasonabledecisionsonadescriptionwherecertainareasarenotclearandareobviouslyofaHistoricalNaturewithoutlookingattheinceptualdeeds?Howcantitlecompaniesandabstractorsignorethechainoftitleinthiscase?Howcantheattorneys?

Theconcentrationonthrowingoutthebathwater(thedirectorycall“atornearCharlesMagnuson’sPlaceinSunriseCity”)causedthebaby(thedescriptionconsistingoflocativecalls)tobethrownoutwiththebathwater.Wherewastheminimalscholarshiprequiringareviewoftheinceptualdeed?Whydidignorancereplacecommonsense?

15

PARTFOUR

ALandSurveyorsopinionoftheambiguityandunmarketabletitlesectionsofMattsonRidge.

ThefirstsectionoftheopinionisalistingofappropriatelearnedwritingsandMinnesotaSupremeCourtcaseswhichcouldhavebeenappliedtothecaseandareappliedtotheopinion.ThesecondsectionhastodowiththeeventsleadinguptothecaseinDistrictCourt.ThethirdsectionconcernstheDistrictCourtcase.ThefourthsectionskipsappellatecourtandgoesdirectlytotheSupremeCourt.Thelastpartamplifiestheopinion.

SectionOneInordertounderstandwhatwentwrongwithMattsonRidgeweneedtounderstandtheroles

ofthecourt,theattorneyandthelandsurveyorintitleandboundaryquestions.AsthediscussionproceedsIwillcommentonhowwellorhowpoorlythoseroleswereadheredtoinMattsonRidge.

Exhibit1

Theroleofthecourtintitleand/orboundaryquestionsismuchdifferentfromthatofthesurveyorortheattorney.Thesurveyor’sresponsibilityistocollectevidenceofpastboundariesdescribedindocuments,tocollectevidenceofpossessionanduse,andtocreatenewevidencetobeleftforfuturesurveyorstorecover.Inquestionsoftitleorboundaries,thesurveyorcanthenbecalledontotestifyandgiveopinionstohelpthecourtorthejuryunderstandcomplicatedareas.Usually,anexpertisnotrequestedifthefactsarewithinthecapabilitiesofthejurytounderstand.Surveyorsshouldnotbeconsideredasadvocatesforaparticularclientorposition.Attorneys,ontheotherhand,arethemeansbywhichlegalquestionsarepresentedtothecourts.Theyareadvocates,espousingthepositionoftheirclients,rightorwrong.Attimesitmayseemthatsurveyorsareadvocates,butonemustdifferentiatebetweenhonestdifferencesofopinionamongsurveyorsandtheadvocacyofasurveyorwhomayseemtobeanadvocate.Thecourtsarepresenttoapplythevariouslaws,bothstatuteandcommon,tothefactspresented.Ifthereisaquestionastothefacts,itisintheprovinceofthejurytodecidewhatfactstobelieveandtoapply.

Inactualpractice,thesurveyormayencounternumerousattorneysandjudgeswhodonotunderstandthisprincipleandmaxim.

Inapplyingthisstatement,courtswillattempttoascertaintheapplicationofcommon-lawdoctrines,suchasadversepossession,estoppel,andagreementtoboundaries,whereasjurieswilldeterminewhichofthetwosurveyorsistobetrustedintestimonyandhowmuchweightshouldbegiventoanyevidenceandtheresultingfacts.Surveyorswillascertaintheinterpretationofwordsinadescriptionthatiscontainedinadeedandthejurywilldeterminewhichofthetwoiscorrect,whereasthecourtsandthejudgewilldeterminewhetherthedeedmeetstherequirementsforlegalityandsufficiency.Acourtorlegislaturecannotbestowthisauthorityonanypersonoragency.

16

Becauseofthecourt’sexclusiverighttodeterminethemeaningofwordscontainedinaconveyancethatisbeingquestionedandthentodeterminewherethatparcelislocatedaccordingtothedescription,itisnecessaryforsurveyorstoknowandunderstandhowcourtsinterpretthesemeaningsandwhatorderofimportancetoplaceonthem.

Brown’sBoundaryControlandLegalPrinciples,7thEdition,W.RobillardandD.Wilson(2014)P.20 Titleishistory.Anabstractoftitleisthehistoryofinstrumentsofrecordaffectingrightsintheproperty.Inaquestionofambiguityornonmarketabletitle,reviewingtheabstractoftitleisoneofthefirsttasksofacompetentlandsurveyor.Fromtheabstractthepertinentinstrumentscanbeobtainedfromthecountyrecorder. InunderstandingwhatwentwrongwithMattsonRidgeitisimportantthatweunderstandthattheabstractandpriordeedswerenotviewedbytheattorneys.Noabstractorwasconsulted.Exhibit2-ABSTRACTORS

Anabstractorcompilesachainoftitleonparcelsoflandfromitsoriginorfromasettimeinthepast(usually40yearsormore,setbyacceptedcommunitypracticeorbystatute)tothepresenttime,allinaccordancewiththepublicrecord;unrecordeditemsarenotincluded.Anabstractisacollectionandchronologicalsummaryofanyinstrumentsordocumentsofrecordaffectingrightsintheproperty.Anabstractorisresponsiblefortheaccuracyoftherecordsbutisnotresponsibleforthelegalityofeachrecording.

Abstractingancientlandrecordsisfastbecomingalostart.Yearsago,mostyoungattorneysputintimeinlocalcourthouserecordrooms“searching”orabstractingtitles.Theseattorneyswentontobecomecircuitcourtjudgesandappellatejudges,takingwiththemtheirknowledgeoftitlesandboundaries.Thisisnolongerso.Incourthouserecordrooms,paralegalsandregisteredsurveyorsaretheusualvisitors.Wenowhaveagenerationofjudgeswhoareknowledgeableincontractandcriminallawbuthaveverylittleknowledgeofrealpropertylawandboundaries.Infact,today,onemayfindattorneysandjudgeswhoneverhave“runatitle”toaparcelofland.

Today,itseemsthatabstractingisbeingreplacedbybuyingtitleinsuranceandtheprayersneededtoassureproofofownershipandlines.

Brown’sBoundaryControlandLegalPrinciples,7thEdition,W.RobillardandD.Wilson(2014)P.67,68Exhibit3 Thereisaproperwaytoreadinstrumentsanddetermineintention.It’sbeenaroundalongtime.RaySkeltoninBoundariesandAdjacentProperties(1930),Pages65and66,laysitoutveryclearly.UnderstandingwhatwentwrongwithMattsonRidgerequiresthisknowledge.Surveyorsuseitallthetime.

17

CONTROLOFINTENTION.

TheRule.–TheancientrigidityoftechnicalruleshasgivenwayinmoderntimestothemoresensibleandpracticalruleofthecontrolofactualexpressedintentionassetforthbyJudgeSavageofMainewhosaid,“Thecardinalrulefortheinterpretationofdeedsandotherwritteninstrumentsistheexpressedintentionoftheparties,gatheredfromallpartsoftheinstrument,givingeachworditsdueforce,andreadinthelightofexistingconditionsandcircumstances.Itistheintentioneffectuallyexpressed,notmerelysurmised.Thisrulecontrolsallothers.”JudgeSandersonofCaliforniagraphicallyoutlineshowthisintentionistobeascertainedwhenheruledthatinconstruinginstruments,“theonlyruleofmuchvalue–onewhichisfrequentlyshadowedforth,butseldom,ifever,expresslystatedinbooks–istoplaceourselvesasnearlyaspossibleintheseatswhichwereoccupiedbythepartiesatthetimetheinstrumentwasexecuted;then,takingitbythefourcorners,readit.”

MethodofApplication.–Whentheengineerpictureshimselfintheseatofthescrivenerheshouldkeepinmindthat–(1)Theobjectoftheconstructionofadeedistodiscoverandeffectuatetheintentionoftheparties.(2)Theintentionistobegatheredfromthewordsoftheconveyancereadinthelightofsurroundingcircumstances.(3)Theconveyanceispresumedtobemadewithreferencetotheconditionsandstateofthepremisesatthetime,andnosubsequentchangewillinvalidateit.(4)Aconstructionwhichisconsistentwithallthetermsofthedescriptionshouldbegiven,ratherthanoneconsistentwithsomeoftheseterms.(5)Itistheintentionofthepartiesdefinitelyexpressedintheinstrumentthatcontrols.

Exhibit4WhatisamarketabletitleislaidoutinHubacherv.MaxbassSecurityBank,117Minn.163,169,134NW640,642.

AMARKETABLETITLEisonethatisfreefromreasonabledoubt;onethataprudentperson,withfullknowledgeofallthefacts,wouldbewillingtoaccept.Atitlethatmayinvolvethepurchaserinlitigationtoremoveapparentorrealdefectsappearinguponthefaceoftherecordisnotonewhichthevendeewillbecompelledtoaccept.Thequestionsis,notwhetheracourtwouldonthefactsdisclosedadjudgethetitlegood,butwhether,withouttheaidofaspecificdecision,thetitleissofarfreefromdoubtthatareasonableperson,actingingoodfaith,wouldacceptit.“Thequestionmustbeconsideredfromthestandpointoftheintendingpurchaser,andnotfromtheviewpointofthecourt.”(Italicssupplied.)

InunderstandingwhatwentwronginMattsonRidgeitisimportanttonotehowthisdecision

wasusedindistrictcourtandchangedinMinnesotaSupremeCourt.Exhibit5

InCityofNorthMankatovCarlstrom2NW2nd133,134thecourtsstatethatadescriptionmust

besufficienttoidentifythepropertyintendedtobeconveyed,butthecourtsareextremelyliberalinconstruingdescriptions.

18

Andunderthemaximthat“thatiscertainwhichcanbemadecertain”courtsleanagainst

strikingdownadeedforuncertaintyofdescriptionofthelandconveyed.

And“ifasurveyorwiththedeedbeforehimcanwiththeaidofextrinsicevidenceifnecessary,locatethelandandestablishitsboundaries,thedescriptionthereinissufficient.”

TheseissuesarerelevantinunderstandingwhatwentwronginMattsonRidge.Ofcourse,theremustbeadescriptionsufficienttoidentifythepropertyintendedtobeconveyed.Itmustbesuchastoidentifythepropertyoraffordthemeansofidentificationaidedbyextrinsicevidence.26C.J.S.,Deeds,§§29and30,andcasescitesundernotes.But,asstatedin16Am.Jur.,Deeds,§262:“Thecourtsareextremelyliberalinconstruingdescriptionsofpremisesconveyedbydeedwiththeviewofdeterminingwhetherthosedescriptionsaresufficientlydefiniteandcertaintoidentifylandtomaketheinstrumentoperativeasaconveyance.***anditmaybelaiddownasabroadgeneralprinciplethatadeedwillnotbedeclaredvoidforuncertaintyindescriptionifitispossiblebyanyreasonablerulesofconstructiontoascertainfromthedescription,aidedbyextrinsicevidence,whatpropertyisintendedtobeconveyed.”

Evenwherethedescriptionisdoubtful,“thecourtwillkeepinmindthepositionofthecontractingpartiesandtheconditionsunderwhichtheyactedandinterpretthelanguageoftheinstrumentinthelightofthesecircumstances.”Underthemaximthat“thatiscertainwhichcanbemadecertain,”courtsproperly“leanagainststrikingdownadeedforuncertaintyofdescriptionofthelandconveyed,”andgenerallywilladopt“aliberalruleofconstruction***toupholdtheconveyance.So,ifasurveyorwiththedeedbeforehimcan,withtheaidofextrinsicevidenceifnecessary,locatethelandandestablishitsboundaries,thedescriptionthereinissufficient.”

Exhibit6Theproperruleinconstruingexceptionsinadeed. 1. TheruleinMinnesotaisthatallambiguityinadeedshallberesolvedinfavorofthegrantee.Thatruleismodified,amongotherthings,totheextentthatinconstruingreservationsandexceptionsinadeedthepropermethodistodeterminetheintentionofthepartiesfromtheentireinstrumentandthefactsandcircumstancessurroundingthemakingofthedeed.Reslerv.Rogers139N.W.2nd379(1965)

Theproperrulefortheconstructionofadeedofconveyancewhichcontainsanexceptionorreservationistoascertaintheintentionofthepartiesbyconsiderationoftheentireinstrument,thepurposeofintroducingtheexceptionorreservation,itsnature,andtheattendingfactsandcircumstancessurroundingthepartiesatthetimeofitsexecution.

19

An“exception”inadeedispartofthethinggrantedandmustbeinuseatthetimeofthegrant.A“reservation”issomenewthingcreatedbythetermsofthegrant,asaneasementorrightofway.Theyareoftenusedinterchangeably.

Therearecertainelementaryprincipleswithreferencetotheconstructionofreservationsand

exceptionsindeeds,whichrequirenospecialconsideration.Theintentionofthepartiesistobeascertainedfromtheentireinstrument,includingthereservationorexception.Thisincludestheordinarymeaningofthewords,recitals,context,subjectmatter,theobjectorpurposeofintroducingtheexceptionorreservationclause,thenatureofthereservationorexception,andtheattendingfactsandcircumstancessurroundingthepartiesatthetimeofthemakingofthedeed.Itisalsoelementarythatthereservationorexceptionisvoid,whentotallyrepugnanttothegrantingclause.Whenthegrantisdirectandpositive,itcannotbesetasidebyanindirectmethodintheformofanexceptionorreservation.

Whileeachpartoftheexceptionnowbeforeus,whenconsideredseparately,failstoexpress

anydefinite,valid,exceptionorreservation,whenconsideredasawholeitbecomesintelligible.Carlsonv.MinnesotaLand&ColonizationCo.etal.129NW768,769

EVENTSLEADINGUPTOTHECOURTCASE In2005,MattsonRidge,arealestatedevelopmentcompanyformedin2004,purchased88acresfromHaroldandJudithShoberginChisagoCountyfor$1,296,000inSeptember2005.Atissueisthelegaldescriptionofatwoacreexceptiontotheproperty.Thelegaldescriptiononthedeedreadasfollows:

TheNorth½oftheNorthwest¼ofSection25,Township34,Range21,ChisagoCounty,Minnesota,exceptinghowever,twoacres,moreorless,intheNorthwestcorneroftheNorthwest¼ofNorthwest¼ofsaidSection25,describedasfollows:

CommencingattheNorthwestcornerofsaidSection25,thencesouth30rodstotheintersectionofroadleadingfromthecountyroadatornearCharlesMagnuson’splaceinSunriseCity;thencealongthecenteroftheroadtowheresaidroadcrossesthesectionline;thencealongtheNorthlineofsaidSection,24rodstotheNorthwestcornerofsaidNorthwest¼ofNorthwest¼ortotheplaceofbeginning.Exceptingtherefrom,allthatpartoftheNorthwest¼ofNorthwest¼,Section25,Township34,Range21,ChisagoCounty,Minnesota,whichliesSoutherlyofStateAidRoadNo.19andEasterlyofStateAidRoadNo.80.

MattsonRidgepurchasedtitleinsurancefromTicorTitleInsuranceCompany(Ticor)forthepurchaseamountof$1,296,000.ATicorauthorizationtoexceedcontractliabilitylimitationidentifiedthefollowingusualorextrahazardrisks;vaguelegaldescription. MattsonRidgeenteredintoapurchaseagreementwithThompsonBuildersandContractors(Thompson)tosellthepropertyfor$2,900,000.ThepurchaseagreementrequiredMattsonRidgetoprovidemarketabletitle.

20

InMayof2006ThompsonattemptedtoobtaintitleinsurancefromCommercialPartnersTitle,LLC(Commercial).Commercialstatedthatthelegaldescriptionappearsambiguousandshouldbesurveyedandreformed. Commercialdeniedtitleinsuranceuntiltheapparentambiguityofthelegaldescriptionshouldbesurveyedandreformed.Comments:

CommercialdidnotreadthelegaldescriptioninthemannerputforwardbyJudgeSanderson.Theydidnotstatethattherewasanambiguity,justthatthereappearedtobeoneandthatithadtobeclearedupbeforetheywouldinsuretitle.Theymentionednothingabouttheabstractoftitleorpriordeeds.Infacttheycouldnothavereadthedeedof1891,thefirstdeedtoincludethetwoacreexception,withitswrittenintentanduseof“to”ratherthan“in”,inthereferencetoSunriseCity.Thatwouldhavecleareduptheobjection.

Weshouldalsoconsiderthecircumstancesconcerninghousingandtitleinsurancein2005and2006.Thehousingmarketwasinboomandtitlecompanieswerewritingalotoftitleinsurancewhichwasn’talwayswellreviewed.Iwasanexpertwitnessinacaseofreformingadescriptionwhereamortgageehadeightdifferentmortgagesoveraboutatenyearperiod.Threeofthemwerewrittenwithcallsmissingfromthedescription.ThecaseIwasonhadthreecallsmissingoutofeleven.Errorswerecommoninthatintensemarket.

WasCommercialwithinitsrightstoobjecttoanapparentambiguousdescriptionwithout

checkingtheabstractoftitleandthedeeds?Yesitwas.Thetitlemighthaveinvolvedthepurchaserinlitigationtoremoveapparentorrealdefectsappearingonthefaceoftherecord.Apparentorpossibledefectsareenoughforthetitleinsurancecompanytoturnthepolicydown.Theywerenotrequiredtoacceptanydescriptionorprojecttheydon’twantto,however,turningthepolicydowndoesnotmakeitunmarketable.Itjustmeansit’satransactionCommercialdoesn’twanttodealwith.SeeExhibit4,Hubacherv.Maxbass.

CommercialwasawarethatTicorhadinsuredtitleinsurancetoMattsonRidge.Theirthinkingseemstobewhynotletthemclearuptheproblemofapparentorrealambiguity?Theywroteapolicy,letthemcleanupthemess. MattsonRidge’sattorneynumber1(MRAttorney1),inAugustof2006,sentaclaimlettertoClearRockTitle,attachingCommercial’sobjectionastotheambiguousdescription.MRAttorney1didnotreviewthepropertyabstractorpriordeeds.Heassertedthattheambiguity“isclearonitsfaceandasurveyclearlywasnotrequiredtoraisetheissue”MRAttorney1proposedthatTicorissuea$2,900,000policytoinsureovertheobjection,andthatTicorpayfortheregistrationaction. Comments: MRAttorney1didnotreviewtheabstractorpriordeeds.Heassumedtheroleoffinderofevidenceanddeterminednofurtherevidencewasneeded.Heassumedtheroleofsurveyoraswellasattorney.SeeExhibit1.Hedisregardedthenecessaryfoundationofanabstractoftitleandpriordeeds.SeeExhibit2.BynotreadingtheinstructionsassetforthbyJudgeSandersonhedidnotplacehimselfintheseatoccupiedbythepartiesatthetimeoftheinstrumentsexecution.SeeExhibit3.Hedidnotincludethewords“withfullknowledgeofallthefacts”inhisdefinitionofmarketabletitle.SeeExhibit4.HedidnotlookatthedescriptionfromthepointsofviewofExhibits5&6,nordidhetesthis

21

assertionbyseeingifasurveyor,withthedeedbeforehim,withtheaidofextrinsicevidence,ifnecessary,couldlocatethelandandestablishitsboundaries,findingthedescriptionsufficient.MRAttorney1failedtodoanyofthesereasonableandrequiredactionstoprovideevidenceforhisassertion.Hisassertionconsistedonlyofhisopinionofadocumentwronglyreadwhichcontainedscrivenererrorsopposedtothefirstinstrumentcontainingtheexception,andwasopposedtothewrittenintentionofthatdeed.Itwouldbedifficulttodisplaymoreignoranceofwhatshouldhavebeendone.

SectionTwoATTRIALINDISTRICTCOURT

MattsonRidgewasrepresentedbyMRAttorney2,thepartnerofMRAttorney1.Thecaseforambiguityisshowninthetrialtranscripts.

“Itwasdiscoveredthatthelegaldescriptionforthepropertyitselfwasambiguous.AndtheambiguityrelatedspecificallytoareferencethattheroadatornearCharlesMagnuson’splaceinSunriseCity,waspartofthelegaldescription.Ithinkasthecourtcanbewellawarethatwouldleadtoambiguities…Youknow,simplyput,whoisCharlesMagnuson,whereishisplaceandwillhecontinuetobeinthatplaceforever.Clearlyitwasambiguous.“SoyourHonor,Ithinktheissueisfairlyclearthattherewasanambiguouslegaldescription,thewholeideathatthisCharlesMagnuson’spropertyandthat’snotanambiguousdescriptiontomeislaughable.

Comments: MRAttorney2acceptedMRAttorney1’spositionastoambiguityonthefaceofthedocument.Hemadenoattempttoresearchtheabstractorpriordeeds.Nosurveyorwasusedtoprovideevidenceandresearch.ThelessonsofExhibit2wereignored.MRAttorney2wasignorantoftheinterpretationofdeeds.Hedidnotplacehimselfintheseatswhichwereoccupiedbythepartiesatthetimetheinstrumentwasexecuted.SeeExhibit3.Hedidnotreadthepertinentdescriptionwithfullknowledgeofallthefacts(seeExhibit4,whichleadsbacktoExhibits2and3).Hedidnotlookatthedescriptionasawholeorconsiderthat“adeedwillnotbedeclaredvoidforuncertaintyindescriptionifitispossiblebyanyreasonablerulesofconstructiontoascertainfromthedescription,aidedbyextrinsicevidence,whatpropertyisintendedtobeconveyed”(SeeExhibits5&6andParts1and3ofthisdiscussion).

InthematterofZahrada472NW2nd153(Minn.App.1991),thecourtstates“awritteninstrumentisambiguousifitisreasonablysusceptibleofmorethanonemeaning.”Considerthattheinstrumentof2005wasnotanexactduplicateofthedeedof1891,whichusedtheword“to”wherethedeedof2005usesthework“in”,amajordifferenceinmeaning.Andthedeedof1891statedtheintentofthedescription.MRAttorney2’sassertionsarefromadeedwithascrivenerserrorwhichisnotviewedinthetimeofitsexecutionorfromeasilyavailableextrinsicevidence. Thebookssay,ingeneralterms“thefirstdeedandthelastwillshallprevail.”

Wittv.St.Paul&N.P.Rq.Co.35NW862(1888)MRAttorney2lookedforCharlesMagnuson’splaceinthewrongcentury.AlotofhisargumenthadtodowithwhereisCharlesMagnusonnow,whereishisplacenow!Withoutproperfoundationthatiswhatwilloccur.Garbagein,garbageout.

22

IthinkthecaseaspresentedbyMRAttorney2canbestbeillustratedbyaparablefromtheBookofUncommonKnowledge. Amaninhislate60’swasretiredandlookingforsomethingtodo.Hediscussedthiswithafriendwhosuggestedhetrymodelingclothesashewasstillindecentshape.Anditwaswhatthefrienddidonoccasion.Therewasacastingcalltomodelmen’sunderwear,setforthefollowingSaturdayandthefriendsuggestedheshouldgiveitashot.Theretireeaskedforanyhelpfulhintsoradvice.Thefriendsaid“youhavetohelpnaturealongabit.Stuffapotatointheshorts.Usethisregularbakingpotato.”SothatSaturdaytheretireehappilyheadedouttothecastingcall.OnSundayhestoppedathisfriend’shousetoreturnthepotatoandwasaskedhowthingswent.Hesaid“terrible,theycalledmeapervertandanutcase,toldmenevertocomeback,andkickedmeout.”Idon’tunderstand,saidthefriend,“showmeexactlywhatyoudid.”Theretireedidandthefriendsaid“IthinkIseewhatwentwrong.Didyoueveronce,justonce,considerputtingthepotatoinfront?Andyoucankeepthepotato.”

AndthatprettywelldescribesMRAttorney2’spresentation.Hekepteveryoneconcentratingonwherethepotatowas,whatitobviouslywasonitsface,sotospeak,andnotlookingatthesituationasawhole.Theopposingattorneyboughtitandthecourtboughtit.Nobodyconsideredthefirstdeedshowingthe2acreexception.Thedeedof1891wasn’tbroughtintotherecord. TheattorneyforTicorTitleInsuranceCompany(TicorAttorney1),heldasthemaindefensepositionthefollowingfromthedistrictcourttrialtranscripts: “Thepolicydefinitionexcludeslandwhichabutsstreetsorroads.”(Page14)Towhichthecourtreplied:

THECOURT:Iguessyou’remakingyourcommentaboutnotbeing--theinsurancecompanynotbeingonthehookbecauseoftherebeingroadsinvolved.But,eventhoughthereareroadsinvolvedit’stheentirepropertythatisunmarketable.Ifthisisn’tcoveredwhatiscoveredbyyourtitleinsurancepolicy?(Page18)

Thesecondareaofdefensedealtwiththeassertionsofambiguityandunmarketabletitle.Fromthecourttranscripts: TicorAttorney1“theysaythatatanymomentintimetheproperty’slegaldescriptioncouldbeambiguousbecauseofthisreferencetoCharlesMagnuson’splace.Againwedon’thaveanyevidencethatCharlesMagnuson’splacecan’tbeidentifiedrightnow.Ifyougobackintherecords,ifyouhaveasurveyorgobackanddotheresearch.Thatwouldbethetypeofevidencethatyouwouldanticipateseeingtosupportaclaimofambiguity.Andtherearecaselawcitedonour--inourpapers,thatsupportMinnesota’stendencytouseotherthings,places,asreferencesforadjacentproperties.Andit’sbeenacceptedasnon-ambiguouslegaldescriptions. ThesecondthingisthatwhatImentionedwiththeCommercialTitle’scommitment.Theysaythatitappearsambiguous,wedon’thaveanyevidencefromCommercialTitleintherecordthattheydidinfactfindanyambiguity.SoImean,itappearsambiguousfromthetitlecommitmentisnotsufficientevidencetosupportPlaintiff’sclaimofambiguity.(Page13)” TheCourt:“Isn’ttheproblemwiththelegaldescriptionadefect?”

23

TicorAttorney1:“Well,no,they’resayingtheproblemwiththelegaldescriptionisthereferencetoCharlesMagnuson’sproperty,andthereiscaselawthatsays--wedon’t--inMinnesota,thattheyallowreferencetootherpeople’spropertyaslongasyoucanidentifyit.Andthereisnoevidenceintherecordthatnobodycould--orthattherecouldn’tbeanidentificationofCharlesMagnuson’spropertybyasurveyorwhowentoutandwentthroughtherecords.”(Page19) Comments:

TicorAttorney1didnotutilizetheservicesofalandsurveyortoprovidetheevidenceneededtodefendthecase.Therewasampleevidenceavailableinthepublicrecordstodefeattheassertionsofambiguityandunmarketabletitle.Aninhouseparalegalraisedthequestions“IsthereanythinginthecountyrecordsthatwouldshowandclearlyidentifyCharlesMagnuson’splaceasdescribedinthelegaldescription?Canasurveyorlocateitwithrelativecertainty?Again,thequestionofambiguity.”Theparalegalsuggested“obtainsecondopinionfromasurveyorastoambiguityoflegaldescription.Researchwhatmakesalegaldescriptionambiguous.Gettheoriginalabstractoracopyofit.”

TicorAttorney1appearedtofeelthattheworkasurveyorcoulddoshouldbedone,butitshouldbedonebyMattsonRidge. TicorAttorney1presentednoevidencetosupporttheircase.Thelandsurveyorwasomittedfromtheprocess.SeeExhibit1.Thechainoftitlewasnotreviewednorwerepriordeeds.Howcanonedefendagainstambiguityandunmarketabletitlewithoutsearchingtherecord(SeeExhibit2)?Theattorneydidnotunderstandhowtointerpretaninstrumentandtheconstructionofadeed(Exhibit3).Theattorneydidnotunderstandthatamarketabletitlerequiresaprudentperson,withfullknowledgeofallthefacts.SeeExhibit4.TheattorneydidnotknowhowthatambiguityinadeedshouldberesolvedasnotedinExhibit6.Theattorneyknewthecourtstendtotakealiberalviewofdescriptionsbutdidnotprovideanyevidenceorassertionstosupportthatview.(Exhibit1) TicorAttorney1followedrightalongwithMRAttorney2’sassertionsthatCharlesMagnusonandhisplacewerecurrentwithoutpresentingevidencetothecontrary. ItishardtoaddressthemagnitudeofignoranceofTicorAttorney1andMRAttorney’s1and2,butasthelandsurveyorwhoresearchedandprovedtherewasnoambiguityorunmarketabletitleandunderthemaxim“thatiscertainwhichcanbemadecertain”(SeeExhibit5),Iamqualifiedtodothatandthisdiscussionincludesmyproofs.Allthreewereincrediblyignorantoftheissuesdiscussedandpropertylaw.

SectionThreeTheDistrictCourt

DistrictCourtAnalysis “ThesoleissueiswhetherthereferencetoCharlesMagnuson’splaceinthelegaldescriptionwasambiguousandthereforemadethepropertyunmarketable. ThereferencetoCharlesMagnuson’splaceisreasonablysusceptibleofmorethanoneinterpretationbasedonitslanguagealone.Thereforethelegaldescriptionisambiguous.”Comments:

24

Thedescriptioncitedinthiscasefromthedeedof2005usesthewords“inSunriseCity”.Thedeedof1891,thefirstdeedtoincludetheapproximatelytwoacreexceptioninthisnorthwestcornerofthe40,usesthewords“toSunriseCity”.Thedeedof2005usesthewrongwording,throughascrivenerserror.Thewordingoftheoriginatingdeedshouldcarrythroughandtakeprecedentoveralateronewhichincludesascrivener’serror.Thecall“totheintersectionoftheroadleadingfromthecountyroad,atornearCharlesMagnuson’splace,toSunriseCity(commasadded)hasadifferentmeaningthan“totheintersectionoftheroadleadingfromthecountyroadatornearCharlesMagnuson’splaceinSunriseCity.”Whydidn’tthecourtrequestfoundationforthedeedof2005toassureitsaccuracy?Whydidn’tTicor’sattorneybringitup? Thedistrictcourtstatedthatthesoleissueiswhetherthedescriptionisambiguous.Havingprecedentoveranyissueofambiguityisintent.Whatwastheintentofthedescriptionwhenitwasexecuted?Thelastwordsofthedescriptionof1891are“herebyintendingtoconveyallthatpartofsaiddescribed40acrelotthatislyingwestoftheroadcontainingabout2acresmoreorless.”HadthecourtrequestedfoundationforMattsonRidge’sassertionofambiguity,bringingforwardthedeedof1891,therewouldbenoissueofambiguity.Whydidn’tTicor’sattorneypresentthedeed? Remember,thefirstdeedandthelastwillprevail!Asapracticinglandsurveyorforoverfortyyears,whohasbeenguidedbycaselawanddecisionsofthecourtthroughthoseyears,IholdthecourttoahigherstandardthanIdoadvocatingattorneys.Iexpectsomewisdomandknowledgeofthesubjectaswellasknowledgeofthelaw.Ofcoursetherewassomethingwrongwiththewords“theroadleadingfromtheintersectionofroadleadingfromthecountryatornearCharlesMagnuson’splaceinSunriseCity.”AsalandsurveyorofmorethanalittleexperienceIquicklycheckedthatdescriptionagainsttheoriginaldeedshowingthetwoacremoreorlessexceptionasnotedinthedeedof1891.Therewasascrivener’serrorinthedeedof2005andalsoinotherdeedsbetween1891and2005.Oncegiventhedateof1891IcouldprovewhereCharlesMagnuson’splacewas.Theattorney’sinstantdeclarationofambiguitywasenormouslyignorantandnotcheckingitoutthroughthechainoftitlewasnotduediligence. Thelandhasnotchangedsince1891andtheinstrumentexecutedin1891withthewordingofthedescription,hadnotchangedeither.Itstillapplied.Therewerebetteroptionstopursueotherthanclaimingambiguityandthattheskywasfalling.Ambiguitywastheassertionofignorance.I’vemeticulouslygoneoverotherpossibleandpositivesolutionstotheproblemcausedbythescrivener’serrorinpartsone,twoandthree.Withsomanypositiveoptionsavailableonemustaskwherewastherequiredlearninginappropriatelegalprinciplesandcaselaw?Whenwasitreplacedbyignoranceandhubris?Ifthecourtispresentedanincorrectdeedcontainingasubjectchangedbyerror,andthecourtcites“awritteninstrumentisambiguousifitisreasonable,susceptibleofmorethanoneinterpretationbasedonitslanguagealone”astoambiguity,howdoesthatapply?Doesitapplytotheincorrectdescriptionandisthereforenotapplicable?Whatgoodisit?

Thecourtalsocited,astomarketabletitle“amarketabletitleisonethatisfreefromreasonabledoubtandonethataprudentpersonwouldbewillingtoaccept”,quotingHubacherv.MaxbassSecurityBank(1912).ThecourtincorrectlycitesthequotefromHubacherandbecauseofthepaucityorevidenceinthiscase,Ithinkitdeliberateinordertofitthelittleevidencepresented.Theactualquoteis“amarketabletitle___isonethatisfreefromreasonabledoubt;onethataprudentperson,withfullknowledgeofallthefacts,wouldbewillingtoaccept.Thewords“fullknowledgeofallthefacts”wereomitted,andtheyareimportant.Nooneinthiscasehadfullknowledgeofallthefacts.It’safact,andashamefulone,thatnoonelooked!Thecourtwaspresentedwithassertionsconcerningadescription

25

inadeedwithasubjectchangedbyscrivenerserror.Therewasnosubstantialevidencepresentedagainstthoseassertions. Ticor’sassertionthattherewasnoevidenceintherecordtosupportMattsonRidge’sassertionofambiguity,whileaccurate,didnotmakeupforTicor’sinabilitytopresentanyevidencetodenyorrefuteMattsonRidge’sassertionofambiguityeventhoughthepublicrecordwasinundatedwiththatevidence.Ticorwasignorantofthatevidence,MattsonRidgewasignorantofthatevidence,andthecourtdidnotexpanditsinterestinthecasebeyondwhatwasasserted,leavingitignorantalso. ThecourtstatedthatCommercialPartnersdeclarationthatthelegaldescription“appearedambiguous”coupledwiththesubsequentactionofregisteringthelandwithanewlegaldescriptiontoalleviateanydoubtsshowsthattitlewasunmarketable.Theappearanceofambiguitytosome,isnotthesameasactualambiguity.Howev.Coateshasapplicablequotes,toparaphrasehere“wearenotabletoacceptthejudgestheoryforthealleviationofanydoubts.”And“weconfessourinabilitytograsptheforceofthejudgescontention.” CommercialPartnersrequiredthequestionofambiguity,real,orapparentornon-existent,tobeclearedupbeforetheywouldwritethepolicy.Onewaytoaccomplishthat,andthemosteconomicway,istopursueambiguityasI’veshowninpartsoneandtwo.RegisteringthelandissimplyanotherwaytomakethetitleagreeabletoCommercialPartners.Athirdway,thatcitedinCityofNorthMankatov.Carlstrom(1942)2NW2nd130,131,acasecitedintheMinnesotaSupremeCourtsdecisioninMattsonRidgeis“ifasurveyorwiththeaidofextrinsicevidence,ifnecessary,canlocatelandconveyedandestablishitsboundaries,descriptionthereofindeedissufficient.”Therewasnoambiguity,therewasnounmarketabletitle. Further,underthemaximthatiscertainwhichcanbemadecertain,courtsproperlyleanagainststrikingdownadeedforuncertaintyindescriptionoflandconveyedandgenerallywilladoptaliberalruleofconstructiontoupholdconveyance.Ibelievethatpartsone,twoandthreeofthisreporthaveproventhattherewasneveranambiguity.Thedescriptioncouldbelocatedonthegroundin1891andin2015andanytimeinbetween. CommercialPartnersdidnotattempttoreviewanabstractoftitleorpriordeeds.Howcanatitleinsurancecompanyrelyontheadviceofanattorneywhodoesn’texaminetherecord?(Exhibit2)Howcansaidcompanyanditsattorneybeignorantofhowtoreadandinterpretaninstrument?(Exhibit3).Howcanatitleinsurancecompanyrelyonadviceastomarketabletitlewhichdoesnotincludefullknowledgeofallthefacts?(Exhibit4).HowcanatitleinsurancecompanyrelyonadvicefromanattorneythatgoesagainstcityofNorthMankatov.Carlstromastodescriptions,theirconstructionandthepossibleevidenceofasurveyorinlocatingthelandanditsboundariesfromadescription(Exhibit5)? Thetitleinsurancecompanymadeanassertion,anignorantassertion,withoutallthefacts.ThecourtwasinerrorwhenitassumedCommercialPartnersknewwhattheyweretalkingabout.HadCommercialTitleanditsattorneyscheckedoutthetitletothispropertyastheycouldhave,byemployingadiligentlandsurveyororabstractor,thequestionofambiguity,whollyinthemindofMattsonRidgeAttorney1,wouldhavegonebacktothesmokeitwasmadefrom.Thispropertywouldhavesoldandtherewouldhavebeennocourtcase.

26

TheSupremeCourtTheEvidenceAvailableToTheSupremeCourtAsToAmbiguityAndUnmarketableTitle

CaseLawIgnored “Thefirstdeedandthelastwillshallprevail.”Wittv.St.PaulandN.P.RyCo.35NW862(1888).TheruleinMinnesotaisthatallambiguityshallberesolvedinfavorofthegrantee.Thatruleismodified,amongotherthings,totheextentthatinconstruingreservationsandexceptionsinadeedthepropermethodistodeterminetheintentionofthepartiesfromtheentireinstrumentandthefactsandcircumstancessurroundingthemakingofthedeed.SeeExhibit6.Reslerv.Rogers139NW2nd379(1965).AlsocitedinCarlsonv.MinnesotaLandColonizationCo.etal.129NW768(1911)andVangv.Mount220NW2nd498(1974)“Titlewasunmarketablewhenseveralprofessionalsinthefieldexpressedwellfoundeddoubtsabouttheadequacyofthelegaldescriptionoftheproperty.”Syllabusofthecourt,part1. ThedistrictcourtsyllabusmentionsMr.Dusenka’saffidavitbutnootherexpertsinthefield.Whoweretheexpertsinthefield?ThetwoattorneyswhowereadvocatesforMattsonRidgeandMr.Dusenka.Mr.FrankieDusneka,wasapartownerofMattsonRidge,andthemayorofChisagoCity.ThetwoattorneysandMR.Dusnekanotonlywereprejudicedbutdidnotknowwhattheyweretalkingabout.I’vemeticulouslyshowntheignoranceofthetwoattorneysandcanreasonablystatethatbeingmayorofacitydoesnotprovidetheabilitytomakewellfoundeddoubtsaboutalegaldescription.Ifthedescriptionwasnotambiguous,whichisclearlyshowninthisdiscussion,thetitleisnotunmarketable.Futurereadersshouldbewarywhentheterms“severalprofessionalsinthefield”and“wellfoundeddoubts”areused.Thesetermsareshorthandinthiscaseforindividualsignorantofallthefactsmakingsupposedlyreasonablecommentsbasedonthatignorance.Onceagain,garbagein,garbageout. Thecourt’sopinionstates“amarketabletitleis“onethatisfreefromreasonabledoubt,onethataprudentperson,willfullknowledgeofallthefacts,wouldbewillingtoaccept.”CityofNorthMankatov.Carlstrom2NW2nd130,133(1942) Whointhiscasehadfullknowledgeofallthefacts?NottheattorneysforMattsonRidgeandTicor.Notthejudgeswhowerepresentedwithmisinformationandignoranceoftheissues. NoneofMattsonRidge’sassertionswerebasedonknowledgeofallthefacts.Theydidnotresearchallthefactsandstayedignorantofallthefactsthroughthetrials.Ticor’sattorneywasalsoignorantoftheissuesandbereftofanyofthepertinentfacts,partlybecausetheywereignorantofthepropermethodofresearchandthebasicmaximthatthefirstdeedshallprevailandpartlybecauseoftheotherincorrectassertionstheymade. “Therefore,evenafterresearchingandexaminingrelevantrecords,thedoubtsexpressedbyexpertsabouttheadequacyofMattsonRidge’stitletothepropertywerereasonablebecausethereferenceintheproperty’slegaldescriptionto“CharlesMagnuson’sPlace”wasambiguous.”Page9ofWestlawreport.Nooneinthiscaseresearchedtherelevantrecords.Allwereignorantofthem.Noonehadfullknowledgeofallthefacts,andwithoutfullknowledgeofallthefacts,onecan’tmeetthecriteriaforeithermarketableorunmarketabletitle.Allthefactsarenecessaryforthatdetermination.

27

Therearenoexpertsinthiscase.Thesocalledexpertsprovidedadeedwithascrivenerserrorobfuscatingitsmeaning.Aproblemeasilyclearedupbylookingatthefirstdeed.Theexpertsdidn’tdealatallwithintentwhenit’swrittenintothefirstdeed.Theexpertsdidn’tresearchthepublicrecordstodeterminethelocationofCharlesMagnuson’splace.Theexpertshadnoideaastohowtoconstrueadescriptionwithanexception.Theexpertsweretooignoranttoreadthefirstdeed.Theexpertsclaimedambiguityonthefaceofthedocumentwithnoknowledgeoftheproperwaytoconstruethedescriptionorknowledgeofthepertinentcaselaw.Theexpertshaveprovidedgarbageforthecourtstoworkwith. Itisinterestingthattheopinionsofexpertswerenotnotedinthedistrictcourtsopinion,butsomehowevolvedintothewaytotruthintheMinnesotaSupremecourt.Iconfessmyinabilitytograsptheforceofthisstatementwhentheyexaminedorresearchednorelevantrecordsandwereinnowayexperts. Asapracticinglandsurveyorandanavidreaderofcaselawasitaffectssurveying,andasonewhousescaselawasaguideinsurveying,Ihaveagreatdealofrespectforthecourtsandasystemwheredifferencescanbepresentedanddiscussedinagenerallycivilmannerwitharulingbasednotonemotionbutonthelaw.Therefore,IholdthecourtstoahighstandardandIlooktothecourtsforreasonedwisdom. ForexampleinCityofNorthMankatov.Carlstromthecourtstatesunderthemaxim“thatiscertainwhichcanbemadecertain,”and“ifasurveyorwiththedeedbeforecanwiththeaidofextrinsicevidence,ifnecessary,locatethelandandestablishitsboundaries,thedescriptionissufficient.”Thesewordsareelegantlysaidandbasedonpreviouscourtcases.Themeaningisclear. InReslerv.Rogersthecourtstated“inconstruingreservationandexceptionsinadeedthepropermethodistodeterminetheintentionofthepartiesfromtheentireinstrumentandthefactsandcircumstancessurroundingthemakingofthedeed.”Thiswasclearlystatedandreasonable. ThewordsofJudgeSandersonofCalifornia“theonlyruleofmuchvalue,onewhichisfrequentlyshadowedforth,butseldomifever,expresslystatedinbooks–istoplaceourselvesasnearlyaspossibleintheseatswhichwereoccupiedbythepartiesatthetimetheinstrumentwasexecuted,then,takingitbythefourcorners,readit”areclearlystatedwithgreatdignityandaremeaningfultoday. InHowev.Coates(1906)thecourtstates“wearenotabletoaccepttherespondent’stheoryfortheconstructionofthiscontract,”and“weconfessourinabilitytograsptheforceoftherespondent’scontentionthattheappellantisclaimingaforfeiture.”Thewordingisverycivil,thecaseisaprimeronmarketabletitle,andanentertainingread. InHedderlyv.Johnson44NW527(1890)thecourtstates:

1.Tomakeatitletorealestateunmarketable,sothatspecificperformancesofacontracttoconveywillnotbeenforcedagainstthevendee,theremustbeareasonabledoubtastoitsvalidity.Ifthedoubtraiseaquestionoflaw,itmustbeafairlydebatableone–oneuponwhichthejudicialmindwouldhesitatebeforedecidingit.Ifthedoubtdependonamatteroffact,andthereisnodoubtastohowthefactis,andifitmaybereadilyandeasilyshownatanytime,itdoesnotmakethetitleunmarketable.

28

Thisisnicelyreasonedandwellstated.HavingstatedmyadmirationforcaselawandthejudicialsystemasitaffectslandsurveyingandboundarylawandgivenexamplesofcaselawIfindexemplary,howdoesMattsonRidgeLLCv.ClearRockTitleetal.compare?Whatcanthepracticinglandsurveyor,therealestateattorneyandfuturecourtstakefromMattsonRidgeastoambiguityandmarketableorunmarketabletitle? Toplacemyopinioninitsproperposition,Iamnotanattorney,Iamnotthemeansbywhichlegalquestionsarepresentedtothecourt.Iamnotajudge,applyingvariouslawstothefactspresented.WhatIamisthatprudentpersonsoughtforinthiscaseandtheonlypersoninthiscaseincludingattorneysandjudges,withfullknowledgeofallthefactsastoambiguity,marketabletitleanddescriptions.Iamthelicensedlandsurveyorwhoresearchedandobtainedsufficientproofthatthedescriptioninquestiondidnotcomparetotheoriginalcreatedin1891,whichitshould,thattheintentnotedinthatdeedof1891wasignored,thatthereisextrinsicevidenceshowingthelocationofCharlesMagnuson’splace,andthelocationofthetrailorroadnotedinthedescriptioncanbelocated.BasicallyIhaveprovedtherewasnoambiguityinthedescriptionandthereforenounmarketabletitle.Further,Iamthat“surveyorwhowiththedeedbeforehim,andwiththeaidofextrinsicevidence,locatedthetrailandestablisheditsboundaries,makingthedescriptionthereinsufficient.” HadtheevidenceandfactsIpresentedherebeenbroughtforthbyanyoftheattorneysinvolved,thematterwouldhavebeensettledindistrictcourtandpossiblymightnothavegonethatfar.Thecourtcaseswereashowplaceforignoranceandshouldbevaluedassuch.Ifthefactsuponwhichtheassertions,opinions,andjudgmentsaremadeareflawedorsimplywrong,thenitisreasonabletobelievethejudgementsofthecourtsarewrong. Iassertthatthisdiscussion,thisseriesoffactbasedopinionsshowsthattheassertionsandopinionspresentedbyMattsonRidge’sattorneys,whicharethefoundationsuponwhichthesecourtcasesweredecided,havenobasisinrealityandneverdid.AndthatfactplacesgreatdoubtastothevalueoftheMattsonRidgeLLCv.ClearRockTitleetalcourtcaseforfuturereferencestoambiguityandunmarketabletitle.Infact,thisseriesofreasonedproofsnullifythefuturevalueofthiscourtcaseforthethoughtfulstudentofcaselaw.Wherewasthegraspofpropertylawthatweexpectfromourcourts?Whydidn’tthecourtsupholdthe“generalprinciplethatadeedwillnotbedeclaredvoidforuncertaintyifitispossiblebyanyreasonablerulesofconstructiontoascertainfromthedescription,aidedbyextrinsicevidence,whatpropertyisintendedtobeconveyed?”Whydidn’tthecourtsasktoseethefirstdeedcontainingtheexceptionortheattorneystoprofferit? IsitpossiblethatBrown’sBoundaryControlandLegalPrinciples7thEditioniscorrectwhenitstatesthefollowing?

“Abstractingancientlandrecordsisfastbecomingalostart.Yearsago,mostyoungattorneysputintimeinlocalcourthouserecordrooms“searching”orabstractingtitles.Theseattorneyswentontobecomecircuitjudgesandappellatejudges,takingwiththemtheirknowledgeoftitlesandboundaries.Thisisnolongerso.Incourthouserecordrooms,paralegalsandregisteredsurveyorsaretheusualvisitors.Wenowhaveagenerationofjudgeswhoareknowledgeableincontractandcriminallawbuthaveverylittleknowledgeofrealpropertylawandboundaries.Infact,today,onemayfindattorneysandjudgeswhoneverhave“runatitle”toparcelofland.Today,itseemsthatabstractingisbeingreplacedbybuyingtitleinsuranceandtheprayersneededtoassureproofofownershipandlines.”

29

Isthepracticeoflawnowsuchanexpandingfieldthattherelativelysmallfieldofrealpropertylawshouldnotbepracticedbyeveryattorney?Thatitshouldnotbejudgedbyeveryjudge?Arewenowenteringafieldabandonedbythemany,afieldwheremostmustbeignorant?KnowledgeandexpertisedidnotexistinMattsonRidge.Istheanswerexpertsinthefield? Yetfromthisturbulencetherearestillsomethingswecanholdonto.“Thatiscertainwhichismadecertain.”“Thefirstdeedandthelastwillshallprevail”and“garbageinandgarbageout.”Afinalsummationofthisopinion. OneofmypeersreviewingthisopinionformerecalledaparablefromtheBookofUncommonKnowledgethatwassuggestedasafitforthiscase.“Apolicedetective,newtothejob,hadtoinvestigateacrimeattheUniversityofMinnesota,whichrequiredquestioningprofessorsandadministrators.Heworriedaboutquestioningsuchlearnedandintelligentpeople.Hissupervisorbecauseawareofhisconcernanddissipateditbystating“yougottarealizethatthesepeoplehavespenttheirwholelivesstudyingsomelittlethingthatmaybethirtyotherpeopleintheworldcareabout.Outsideofthattheycouldn’ttellacatturdfromatootsieroll.” AvigorousdiscussionensuedastowhichcategoryMattsonRidgefellinto. Ican’twhollyagreewiththatparablebutit’snotatotallyunreasonablepointofviewforthiscase.Byanyviewpointthisisbadcaselaw.Itisnotworthyofbeingcitedinfuturecases.BUTITISTHELAWINMINNESOTA.Theattorneyswereignorantandtheevidence,ifany,wasflawed.Althoughexpertswerecited,therewerenoexperts.ThejudgeshadpoormaterialtoworkwithandtheydidnotriseabovethatmaterialassomanyotherjudgesI’vecitedhave.Noonehadasoundgraspofrealpropertylaw.Noone.Thethemeofthiscaseisignorance,anignorancewhichI’velaboredtodispel.ThesolutiontoMattsonRidgeasbadlawasIseeit,istoattacktheexperts.Putthemonthestand,showthattheyarenotexperts.IFtheydon’tcovertheissuesI’vediscussedheretheyarenotexpertsinlegaldescriptionsanddescriptiondealingwithambiguity.Berigorousinexaminationoftheirqualifications,smitethemwithgoodcaselaw.IfnecessarybringouttheflawsinMatsonRidge.RonMurphy,MinnL.S.10832December21,2016