Michael L. Pogreba v. Lorraine Pogreba, Janet Bowen

Syllabus

Respondent sued to determine the boundary line dividing two adjacent parcels, one of which has lakeshore. Respondent owns the lake parcel, while he and his siblings own the adjacent farm parcel. Their dispute was tried to the district court without a jury. Appellants challenge the district court's judgment granting relief to respondent and amending and correcting the legal descriptions of both parcels. Appellants argue that the district court erred in (1) determining that the relevant deed is ambiguous; (2) considering extrinsic evidence and adopting a legal description for respondent's parcel that includes 29 acres, instead of 16 acres as stated in respondent's existing deed; and (3) considering the meander line from an 1858 government survey of the disputed land as relevant extrinsic evidence for locating the boundary between the two parcels. Because the district court did not err in determining that the relevant deed is ambiguous, the record evidence supports the district court's findings of fact, and the district court's decision otherwise accords with binding and persuasive legal authority, we affirm.