Opinion
No. 75-522
Decided September 16, 1976. Rehearing denied October 7, 1976. Certiorari granted December 13, 1976.
In quiet title action, trial court ruled that ambiguity existed between patent description of land and land actually possessed by defendant's predecessor in title. As a result of its resolution of the ambiguity, the court found defendant's land not to include the land at issue and quieted title in plaintiff. Defendant appealed.
Reversed
1. QUIETING TITLE — Ambiguity of Patent — Question of Law — Reviewing Court May Make — Independent Judgment. The question of whether a United States patent to certain real property is ambiguous is solely a question of law, and the reviewing court is entitled to make its own judgment on the question independently of the judgment of the trial court.
2. Reformation of Patent — Not Permissible — In Quiet Title Action — Only by Direct Proceeding — Brought by Government. In quiet title action in which both plaintiff's and defendant's predecessors in title were each issued a United States patent to their respective properties, trial court erred in determining one patent to be ambiguous based on its examination of the official plat; for, if in fact there had been an error in the issuance of the original patent, that survey could not be used by the trial court as a basis to, in effect, reform the erroneous patent; such a reformation may be accomplished only by a direct proceeding brought by the government.
3. Quiet Title Action — Prior Patent Prevails. In quiet title action in which the plaintiff and defendant each had a conveyance from the United States Government for the land in controversy, since the agricultural patent of defendant's predecessor in title was issued prior to the patent on a mining claim issued to plaintiff's predecessor in title, the prior patent must prevail.
Appeal from the District Court of Pitkin County, Honorable George E. Lohr, Judge.
Conover, McClearn Heppenstall, P.C., Hugh J. McClearn, Michael S. McCarthy, for plaintiff-appellee.
Oates, Austin McGrath, Ronald D. Austin, for defendant-appellant.
This is an appeal from a judgment quieting title in plaintiff to approximately 19 acres of land. Defendant appeals. We reverse.
Plaintiff's and defendant's predecessors in title were each issued a United States patent to their respective properties.
Plaintiff claims under a chain of title originating in Bonanza Placer. Its predecessor in title made a mineral entry location on March 27, 1889, to the Bonanza Placer consisting of approximately 19 acres of land located in Pitkin County in the NE 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 23, T10S, R85W, 6th P.M. as described by a metes and bounds description. The patent was issued February 14, 1895.
Defendant's claim originated in a receiver's receipt dated August 16, 1886, and a patent from the United States Government issued on September 16, 1890, to his predecessor in title (Elliott). This was an agricultural patent for 160 acres situated in Pitkin County, described as the E 1/2 NE 1/4, SW 1/4 NE 1/4 and NW 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 23, T10S, R85W, 6th P.M. This patent contained the legal description of the land and then following the description were the words: "according to the official plat of the survey." Defendant claims under a chain of title originating in the Elliott patent.
All evidence at the trial of this case was presented by stipulated facts and by introduction of exhibits. Neither party made any claim that they or any of their predecessors in interest ever occupied the land included within the legal description of the disputed property. The parties had to rely on their respective paper titles to prove entitlement to a decree quieting title to the property.
The trial court held that reference in the patent to the official plat permitted it to examine the plat. The official survey, which was in effect at the time that the Elliott patent was issued, showed no claim by Elliott in the area described in his receiver's receipt or patent. However, this survey did show occupancy by Elliott of the SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 of Section 14, and W 1/2 of NW 1/4 and NW 1/4 of SW 1/4 of Section 23, and therefore, based upon the supposed conflict, the court determined that the patent was ambiguous and that it should examine the government surveyor's field notes in order to determine what land, if any, was conveyed to Elliott by the patent. It then concluded that there was no evidence of an intent to convey lands to Elliott different from those lands shown as being occupied by Elliott on the survey and thus concluded that there was no conflict in the two chains of title and entered a decree quieting title in plaintiff to the Bonanza Placer.
[1] When, as here, the evidence is uncontradicted and the only issues are legal question of interpretation of written documents, this court is obligated to make an independent judgment on the merits. Board of County Commissioners v. Anderson, 34 Colo. App. 37, 525 P.2d 478. The question of whether the patent is ambiguous is solely a question of law, Alley v. McMath, 140 Colo. 600, 346 P.2d 304, and the reviewing court is entitled to make its own judgment on the question independently of the judgment of the trial court.
[2] The trial court erred in determining that the Elliott patent was ambiguous. While this survey might have been a basis for Elliott, or for that matter the U.S. Government with the consent of Elliott, to institute a direct proceeding to cancel the original Elliott patent and have a new patent issued therefor, if in fact there had been an error in the issuance of the original patent, that survey could not be used by the trial court as a basis to, in effect, reform the Elliott patent. Such a reformation may be accomplished only by a direct proceeding brought by the government. Clark v. Parsons, 93 Colo. 198, 25 P.2d 176. The purpose of the wording in the patent "according to the official plat of the survey" is to locate the patented land on the ground, but it does not entitle the trial court to reform the patent.
As stated in Brown v. Almasie, 91 Ore. 668, 178 P. 928, quoting from Steel v. St. Louis Smelting Refining Co., 106 U.S. 447, 1 S.Ct. 389, 27 L.Ed. 226:
"The land department — 'was established to supervise the various proceedings whereby a conveyance of the title from the United States to portions of the public domain is obtained, and to see that the requirements of different acts of Congress are fully complied with. Necessarily, therefore, it must consider and pass upon the qualifications of the applicant, the acts he has performed to secure the title, the nature of the land, and whether it is of the class which is open to sale. Its judgment upon these matters is that of a special tribunal, and is unassailable except by direct proceedings for its annulment or limitation.'"
[3] It is undisputed that the Bonanza Placer is located entirely within the NE 1/4 NE 1/4 of Said Section 23. The patent to the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 was issued in 1890 whereas the patent to the Bonanza claim was not issued until 1895. Plaintiff and defendant each have a conveyance from the U.S. Government for the land in controversy and the Elliott patent was issued prior to the patent to the Bonanza Placer; consequently, it must prevail. See Iron Silver Mining Co. v. Campbell, 135 U.S. 286, 10 S.Ct. 765, 34 L.Ed. 155.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to enter judgment for defendant quieting title to the land at issue which lies within the Elliott patent and is encompassed by the description of the Bonanza Placer.
JUDGE PIERCE and JUDGE RULAND concur.