Schultz v. Maxey

3 Citing cases

  1. Vorherr v. Coldiron

    525 S.W.3d 532 (Ky. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 19 times

    We have no hesitancy in saying that since the roadway actually existed when the deeds were executed, it constituted a prevailing monument, and was of controlling importance. As was said in Schultz v. Maxey , 307 Ky. 325, 210 S.W.2d 950, 951 (1948), "If such roadway actually existed, it is well settled that the courses and distances in appellants' deed must yield to it as a known and clearly defined physical object." Since a latent ambiguity existed within the description of the access easement when read in conjunction with the property description contained in the Vorherrs' deed, the trial court should have considered the parol evidence, especially the expert opinions submitted by the Vorherrs, as an aid to the proper construction of the language used. Caudill v. Citizens Bank , 383 S.W.2d 350, 352 (Ky. 1964). Clearly, the latent ambiguity created a question of material issue of fact. Once an ambiguity is found, "areas of dispute concerning the extrinsic evidence are factual issues ... subject to resolution by the fact-finder."

  2. Marcum v. Cantrell

    409 S.W.2d 159 (Ky. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 1 times

    We have no hesitancy in saying that the passway which existed in this case constituted a monument, and was of controlling importance. As said in Schultz v. Maxey, 307 Ky. 325, 210 S.W.2d 950, 951: "It is obvious from the above description and the plat of the subdivision that the southeastern boundary of appellants' property is the northern edge of Winding Way Avenue. If such roadway actually existed, it is well settled that the courses and distances in appellants' deed must yield to it as a known and clearly defined physical object."

  3. Pemberton v. Osborne

    333 S.W.2d 940 (Ky. Ct. App. 1960)   Cited 1 times

    At the time the plat was made, the Lexington Road (now U.S. Highway No. 60) was a clearly established, well-defined physical object, 50 feet in width from the south edge to the north edge of the right of way. The north line of this highway must be the starting point in determining the depth of the lots owned by appellees and also in locating the boundary of the alley. See Schultz v. Maxey, 307 Ky. 325, 210 S.W.2d 950. Once this is determined, it is then merely a matter of following the plat and measuring 167 1/2 feet north from the fixed north line of the highway to locate the alley. Having thus located it, it is obvious that appellees have not obstructed it, but, on the contrary, have paved only within 6 feet of it. It is inconceivable the original subdivider intended that the south border of any lots in Waveland Heights Addition should extend into the right of way to the paved surface of the road, as here contended by appellants. It would have been impossible to convey what this person did not own.