## Facts

- Neighboring landowners in Pierce County held adjoining upland and tideland parcels originally carved from a single government lot owned by a common grantor.
- A 1910 conveyance divided the government lot using “the Creek running through said lot” as the internal boundary.
- Two watercourses existed on the lot: a more northerly channel (North Creek) and a more southerly channel (Rocky Creek/South Creek).
- The southern owners contended the deed referenced North Creek and that a later avulsion created a second channel; the northern owners contended the deed referenced Rocky/South Creek and that the division predated 1910.
- The trial court found Rocky/South Creek was the intended upland boundary, rejected the avulsion theory, and entered a decree using a surveyed line intended to follow Rocky/South Creek.
- The survey line in the decree placed the boundary about 8 feet south of the stream’s centerline.
- The parties also disputed ownership of tidelands seaward of their uplands; tideland deeds from the common grantor contained conflicting and overlapping descriptions.
- The trial court fixed a tidelands boundary that effectively awarded the northern owners more tidelands; the southern owners appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Rocky (South) Creek, not North Creek, was the intended deed boundary for the uplands.
2. Whether the decree’s legal description for the upland boundary was erroneous because it did not follow the stream’s center (thread).
3. How to resolve inconsistent tideland descriptions from a common grantor, including whether a more specific deed description controls over a more general one.

## Decision

- Affirmed the determination that Rocky (South) Creek was the intended boundary between the parties’ uplands.
- Reversed in part and remanded to correct the decree’s legal description so the upland boundary tracks the thread (centerline) of Rocky (South) Creek as closely as possible.
- Reversed in part and remanded the tidelands boundary determination, directing that it be adjusted to conform to the more specific tidelands description in the southern owners’ deed.

## Legal Principles

- When a deed uses a natural watercourse as a boundary and the description is ambiguous, the controlling inquiry is the grantor’s intent at the time of conveyance, determined from the description, surrounding circumstances, and historical/physical evidence.
- Appellate review of boundary factfinding is deferential; findings supported by substantial evidence will not be disturbed.
- Absent contrary deed language, a boundary described as a stream generally follows the stream’s thread (centerline), not an offset line.
- Where conflicting conveyances from a common grantor create inconsistent or overlapping descriptions, a more particular and definite description controls over a more general description to avoid awarding a grantee more than was intended.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the selection of Rocky (South) Creek as the upland boundary, but required the decree to be corrected to follow the creek’s centerline and required the tidelands boundary to be redrawn to match the more specific deed description.


Powell v. Schultz, 4 Wash. App. 213 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971)