## Facts

- Pilgrim owned a larger tract of land and conveyed a portion to Brooks, Kuipers’s predecessor in interest, while retaining the remainder for himself.
- The conveyance used a metes-and-bounds description in the deed rather than referring to an existing fence line.
- At the time of the sale, an old “fox farm” fence stood near the approximate border between the two parcels, but the fence was not referenced in the deed.
- Kuipers later removed part of the fox farm fence in order to construct a garage, and the garage location created a dispute about whether construction extended onto Pilgrim’s land.
- Pilgrim filed a quiet title action to establish the correct boundary line between the properties.
- The trial court directed a surveyor to reconcile the deed’s metes-and-bounds description with undisputed physical features and boundaries on the ground.
- The surveyor treated (1) U.S. Highway 91 as a monument for the western boundary, (2) an existing fence on the northern boundary as a monument for the north line, and (3) the Beaverhead River as a monument for the southern boundary.
- Using those monuments and the deed’s stated measurements—including 602 feet along the north line and 230 feet plus 253 feet along lines following the river—the surveyor established the location of the eastern boundary.
- The trial court accepted the completed survey as accurately locating the deed boundary rather than using the fox farm fence to set the eastern boundary.
- Pilgrim appealed, arguing that the fox farm fence should have been treated as a controlling monument for the boundary.

## Issues

1. When a deed contains a metes-and-bounds description and an old fence near the supposed line is not mentioned in the deed, must the fence be treated as a controlling monument for the boundary rather than the deed’s monuments and distances?
2. If adjoining owners supposed a fence marked the property line, does that fence become the legal boundary after a later survey fixes the true boundary elsewhere?

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed.
- The court held the district court properly relied on the survey that applied the deed description using recognized monuments (Highway 91, the north fence, and the Beaverhead River) and the deed’s stated distances to locate the eastern boundary.
- The court rejected Pilgrim’s argument that the fox farm fence controlled, emphasizing that the fence was not called for in the deed and was not shown to have been intentionally established as the boundary.
- The court stated that a fence mistakenly assumed to be on the line functions only as a practical division fence until the true boundary is ascertained; once the true line is determined, the parties must conform to it.

## Legal Principles

- A metes-and-bounds deed is construed and applied by locating the monuments and measurements called for in the instrument; a survey may be used to fit the written description to the ground.
- Extrinsic evidence may aid application of a deed description, but it does not replace the deed’s calls with a different line based only on an unmentioned fence.
- Monuments referenced in the deed (natural or artificial) generally control over inconsistent courses or distances; an uncalled-for fence does not become controlling without proof it was adopted as the boundary.
- A fence that does not match the true line does not permanently establish the boundary merely because the parties believed it did; once a correct boundary is determined, the legal line governs.

## Conclusion

Pilgrim v. Kuipers upheld a surveyed boundary that implemented the deed’s monuments and stated distances and refused to treat an old fox farm fence—absent from the deed and not shown to be an agreed boundary—as controlling; a mistakenly assumed fence line does not displace the true boundary once that true line is established.


Pilgrim v. Kuipers, 679 P.2d 787 (1984)