������ COURT OF APPEALS ��������������� DECISION �� DATED AND RELEASED �������������� April 8, 1997 |
����������������� NOTICE |
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals.� See � 808.10 and
Rule 809.62(1), Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing.� If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 96-2932-FT
STATE
OF WISCONSIN�������������� IN COURT OF
APPEALS
�� �
DISTRICT III�����������
�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
JERRY K. SAEGER,
����������� ����������� ����������������������� ����������� Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Respondent,
����������� ����������� v.
DAVID E. LUNDGREN and
KATHLEEN A. LUNDGREN,
his wife,
����������������������� ����������������������� ����������� Defendants-Counter-Plaintiffs-Appellants.
������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
����������������
����������������������� APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Oconto County:�
LARRY L. JESKE, Judge.� Affirmed.
����������������������� Before Cane, P.J.,
LaRocque and Myse, JJ.
����������������������� MYSE, J.����������������������� David and Kathleen
Lundgren appeal a declaratory judgment awarding Jerry Saeger a triangular piece
of real estate with a base of 45.3 feet and a length of 1310.43 feet,
comprising approximately .7 of an acre of land.[1]� The Lundgrens contend that the trial court
erred by failing to determine the grantor's intent.� Because we conclude that the deeds are unambiguous, the trial
court could not consider extrinsic evidence of the grantor's intent to
determine the ownership of the disputed triangle of land.� We therefore affirm the judgment.
����������������������� The grantor to both
Saeger and Harold and Sandy Linssens was Thomas and Marilyn Gryboski.� The Gryboskis owned a forty-acre tract in
the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section 31, township 32
north, range 16 east, in the Town of Riverview, Oconto County, Wisconsin.� In July 1985, the Gryboskis issued a
warranty deed to Harold and Sandy Linssen using a description prepared by a
surveyor, Paul N. Smith, who had surveyed the area prior to the Gryboskis'
acquisition of this forty-acre corner section.�
In October 1985, the Gryboskis sold a contiguous ten-acre parcel east of
the Lundgrens' parcel to Saeger.� The
legal description in the deed of the property sold to the Linssens was:
Part of the East Half of the Northeast
Quarter (E� of NE�) in Section 31, Township 32 North, Range 16 East, Town of
Riverview, Oconto County, Wisconsin described as follows:
The point of beginning being the
Northwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE� of NE�)
of Section 31, T. 32N, R. 16E; thence North 89� 42' 45" East 330 feet on
the North section line to a point.�
Thence South 1� 46' 55" East approximately 1310.43 feet to a point
on the South line of the NE� of NE� of Section 31, T. 32N, R. 16E; thence South
89� 45' 47" West approximately 305 feet to a survey marker; thence South
43� 50' West 34.77 feet; thence North 2� 06'43" West 25 feet; thence North
1�46'55" West 1310.43 feet back to the point of beginning.�
EXCEPTING that part of Star Lake Road and
Elbe Road as now used for Town Highway.
����������������������� The legal description of
the property sold to Saeger is:
Part of the East Half of the Northeast
Quarter (E� of NE�) of Section 31, Township 32 North, Range 16 East, Town of
Riverview, Oconto County, Wisconsin, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of the
NE� of NE� of Section 31, Township 32 North, Range 16 East;
thence North 89�42'45" East, 330
feet, on the North Section line to the point of beginning of parcel to be
described:
Thence continuing on the Easterly line, a
distance of 330 feet to a point; thence South 01�46'55", approximately
1310.43 feet, to a point on the South line of the NE� of NE� of Section 31,
Township 32 North, Range 16 East; thence South 89�45'47" West, 330 feet,
to a point;
thence North 01�46'55" West, 1310.43
feet back to the point of beginning; (being a part of the NE� of NE� of Section
31, Township 32 North, Range 16 East, ONLY);
EXCEPTING
that part of Star Lake Road now used for Town Highway.
The
Linssens subsequently deeded their property to the Lundgrens utilizing the same
language from their deed.� After a
subsequent land survey showed a boundary error of forty-five feet, Saeger filed
suit to attain title to the disputed property.�
����������������������� Deeds are construed the
same as other instruments, with the court's purpose being to ascertain the
intent of the parties.� Rikkers v.
Ryan, 76 Wis.2d 185, 188, 251 N.W.2d 25, 27 (1977).� The first step in construing a deed is to
examine what is contained in the four corners of the deed, as the deed itself
is the primary source of the intent of the parties.� Id.� If the
language of a deed is unambiguous, its construction is a matter of law.� Id.� When there is an ambiguity in the deed, the meaning of the ambiguous
words presents a question of fact.� Id.�
����������������������� Further, "where a
deed is susceptible to only one interpretation, extrinsic evidence may not be
referred to in order to show the intent of the parties."� Id. (citing Grosshans v.
Rueping, 36 Wis.2d 519, 528, 153 N.W.2d 619, 623 (1967)).� "[P]arol evidence is not admissible to
vary or explain the terms of a deed, and the acts of the parties are not
admissible to show a practical construction where the language of the deed is
neither ambiguous nor indefinite."�
Kleih v. Van Schoyck, 250 Wis. 413, 419, 27 N.W.2d 490,
493 (1947).� "[W]here the language
of the deed is plain, certain, and unambiguous, the surrounding facts and
circumstances will not be considered."�
26 C.J.S. Deeds � 92 at 850 (1956).� These principles of law require that any ambiguity in the
document be determined from an examination limited to the four corners of the
document.
����������������������� In this case, the deeds
in question are not ambiguous.� The
calls of the deeds establish a definite, certain and ascertainable area of
land.� Therefore, after examining the
four corners of the deed, we conclude that there is no ambiguity in the
deed.� The fact that the descriptions in
these deeds may be in error by 45.3 feet does not alter the clarity of the
descriptions.� The trial court, after
hearing evidence, decided to simply apply the calls of the deeds.� This is in accord with the fact that the
deeds do not contain an ambiguity and without such an ambiguity extrinsic
evidence is inadmissible.� See Rikkers,
76 Wis.2d at 188, 251 N.W.2d at 27.�
Because we conclude the deeds are not ambiguous, we apply the calls of
the deeds and affirm the judgment.���
����������������������� By the Court.�Judgment
affirmed.
����������������������� Not recommended for
publication in the official reports.