## Facts

- Robert P. and Anita B. Theriault owned a parcel whose **southern boundary** was the **northern boundary** of land owned by Joseph C. and Linda M. Murray in Charleston, Maine.
- The Theriaults’ deed described the south line using both **distance calls** and **two stakes driven into the ground**, one at each end of the boundary.
- For years, the Theriaults treated the boundary as the line running between the two stake locations referenced in the deed.
- Over time, the physical stakes no longer existed on the ground.
- After the stakes disappeared, the Murrays asserted the true boundary lay **farther north**, because that location more closely matched the deed’s distance calls.
- The Theriaults filed an action for a declaratory judgment to establish the boundary’s correct location.
- At trial, witnesses (including a surveyor) offered evidence that the former locations of the missing stakes could still be identified from physical conditions on the land, including vegetation patterns and an old roadbed.
- The Superior Court ruled for the Murrays, treating the deed’s **distance calls** as controlling over the deed’s monument references to the two stakes.
- The Theriaults appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (Law Court).

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err by fixing the boundary from the deed’s distance calls rather than first determining the original locations of the deed’s stake monuments, using extrinsic evidence where necessary?

## Decision

- The Law Court **vacated** the judgment and **remanded**.
- The court held that when a deed defines a boundary by both monuments and courses/distances, the factfinder must determine the monuments’ original locations; if those locations can be determined, the monuments control over course-and-distance calls.
- The court further held that a monument’s disappearance does not end its role in boundary location if its former position can be found from the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A deed’s meaning (what boundaries it calls for) is a question of law; the boundary’s location on the ground is generally a question of fact.
- When a deed description contains inconsistent or competing calls, Maine applies a hierarchy that generally gives priority to **monuments** over **courses**, **distances**, and **quantity**, unless doing so would produce an absurd result.
- A monument referenced in a deed remains controlling even if it is no longer physically present, so long as its original location can be determined.
- A latent ambiguity may arise when deed language appears clear but becomes uncertain when applied to the land; in that situation, the court may consider extrinsic evidence of conditions and circumstances to determine the boundary intended by the deed.

## Conclusion

Because the Theriaults’ deed described the disputed boundary by both distance calls and stake monuments, and because there was evidence that the stakes’ original locations could be determined despite their disappearance, the trial court erred in treating distance calls as controlling without first locating the monuments; the Law Court therefore vacated and remanded for a new boundary determination consistent with the priority given to monuments.


Theriault v. Murray, 588 A.2d 720 (1991)