## Facts

- In 1943, Lloyd and Frances Synness conveyed the SW¼ of the SW¼ of Section 17 to C.A. Peterson, **excepting** a 250-foot-by-250-foot square reserved to the Synnesses.
- The deed described the reserved square as “located at the southwest corner” of the larger conveyance and also as “bounded on the south by the Lincoln‑Hauser Lake Road and on the west by U.S. Highway No. 91,” where a building and dance hall known as “The Shanty” was located.
- The “southwest corner” call and the “bounded by the roads” call did not point to the same location, creating a conflict in the written description.
- The deed did not specify whether the road references meant the traveled roadway edges or the edges of the road rights-of-way, and the record did not establish where any such edges were in 1943.
- Donald and Sharon Ferriter became owners of the larger tract (subject to the exception); Bob and Patricia Bartmess became owners of the reserved tract.
- The Ferriters filed a quiet title action seeking a judicial determination of the boundary between their property and the Bartmesses’ reserved square.
- The Ferriters contended the reserved square begins at the **southwest section corner** (the government corner for the SW¼ of the SW¼) and runs 250 feet north and 250 feet east.
- The Bartmesses argued the starting point should be offset from the section corner to the edges of alleged road easements—about 30 feet and 50 feet inward—so the reserved square would extend farther north and east into the Ferriters’ claimed land.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Ferriters on the boundary location and later denied the Bartmesses’ motion for relief from judgment and to alter or amend.
- The Bartmesses appealed.

## Issues

1. Did genuine issues of material fact about the location of the 1943 reserved 250-foot-square tract bar summary judgment in the quiet title action?
2. Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying the Bartmesses’ post-judgment motion for relief from judgment and to alter or amend?

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court **affirmed** the grant of summary judgment for the Ferriters.
- Applying rules for construing conflicting deed calls, the Court concluded the reservation placed the 250-foot square at the **southwest corner of the described property** (the government corner), rather than at uncertain road or right-of-way lines.
- Because the deed could be construed through settled construction rules and the dispute was resolved as a matter of law, the Court held there was no genuine issue of material fact requiring trial.
- The Court also **affirmed** the denial of the Bartmesses’ post-judgment motion, finding no abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper when the record shows no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- Construction of an unambiguous deed, or a deed whose conflicts can be resolved by established construction rules, is a question of law suitable for summary judgment.
- When deed descriptions contain conflicting calls, more certain and stable calls—such as government survey corners or established monuments—control over less certain references like roads or rights-of-way whose historical location cannot be reliably shown.
- A party opposing summary judgment cannot avoid judgment by relying on a boundary theory that depends on speculative or unproven historic road or easement locations.
- A district court’s ruling on a motion for relief from judgment or to alter or amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion; the moving party must show a recognized basis for relief (such as new evidence meeting the applicable standards or legal error warranting amendment).

## Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court held that the 1943 deed’s reservation, construed under deed-call priority rules, fixed the Bartmesses’ 250-foot-square tract at the government southwest corner of the larger parcel, not at uncertain 1943 road or right-of-way lines; because the boundary could be determined as a matter of law, summary judgment quieting title for the Ferriters was proper, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying post-judgment relief.


Ferriter v. Bartmess, 281 Mont. 100, 931 P.2d 709 (1997)