Sacrison v. Evjene

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court reviewed a partial summary judgment in a boundary dispute involving competing surveys and a disputed fence line. The Court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the fence constituted a boundary monument and whether supporting statements were admissible, and it reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. Partial summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the fence marked the true northern boundary of Evjene's property and whether the competing surveys correctly located the boundary.
2. A fence may be relied upon as the true and correct dividing line only when supported by testimony or other evidence indicating that it was built on, surveyed as, or conformed to the correct original boundary line.
3. The affidavit could not support summary judgment to the extent it relied on hearsay and lacked personal knowledge, and the record did not establish that the hearsay satisfied the community-reputation exception.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court erred by granting partial summary judgment when the record contained genuine conflicts in material facts concerning the location of the parties' property boundary.
2. Whether the disputed fence could be treated as an artificial survey monument on summary judgment without evidence that it was surveyed or built to conform to the original boundary.
3. Whether hearsay statements concerning the fence's alleged status as a boundary were sufficient under the community-reputation exception to support summary judgment.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded