Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 70. PROPERTY · CHAPTER 20. TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY · Part 2. Construction of Grant
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 70-20-201 (2026)

Rules For Construing Description

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 70
  3. CHAPTER 20
  4. Part 2
  5. 70-20-201 Rules for construing description

TITLE 70. PROPERTY

CHAPTER 20. TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY

Part 2. Construction of Grant

Rules For Construing Description

70-20-201. Rules for construing description. The following are the rules for construing the descriptive part of a conveyance of real property when the construction is doubtful and there are no other sufficient circumstances to determine it:

(1) Where there are certain definite and ascertained particulars in the description, the addition of others which are indefinite, unknown, or false does not frustrate the conveyance, but it is to be construed by the first mentioned particulars.

(2) When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines, angles, or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount.

(3) Between different measurements which are inconsistent with each other, that of angles is paramount to that of surfaces and that of lines paramount to both.

(4) When a road or stream of water not navigable is the boundary, the rights of the grantor to the middle of the road or the thread of the stream are included in the conveyance, except where the road or thread of the stream is held under another title.

(5) When a navigable lake, where there is no tide, is the boundary, the rights of the grantor to low watermark are included in the conveyance.

(6) When the description refers to a map and that reference is inconsistent with other particulars, it controls them if it appears that the parties acted with reference to the map; otherwise, the map is subordinate to other definite and ascertained particulars.

History: En. Sec. 3413, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; re-en. Sec. 8039, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 10683, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 2077; re-en. Sec. 10683, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 93-2201-4.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2021 · leading case: Larsen v. Richardson, 2011 MT 195 (Mont. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Larsen v. Richardson, 2011 MT 195 (Mont. 2011). · cites it 12× “Application of the priority of calls is not one of “pick and choose” or “pick the one I want to suit the answer I need.” Robillard & Bouman, Clark on Surveying and Boundaries § 15:08A, 148 (Supp.”
Pilgrim v. Kuipers, 679 P.2d 787 (Mont. 1984). · cites it 16× “The trial court concluded that “the Pierce survey, when modified according to correct surveying practices and the provisions of Section 70-20-201, MCA, not only will close, but will describe a tract of land retained by the grantor, Pilgrim, containing an acreage within 20/100th…”
Olson v. Jude, 2003 MT 186 (Mont. 2003). · cites it 5× “Olson suggests that § 70-20-201, MCA, applies in this situation.”
Ferriter v. Bartmess, 931 P.2d 709 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 10× “Section 70-20-201, MCA, provides in relevant part: The following are the rules for construing the descriptive part of a conveyance of real property when the construction is doubtful and there are no other sufficient circumstances to determine it: (1)Where there are certain…”
Wohl v. City of Missoula, 2013 MT 46 (Mont. 2013). · cites it 2× “2d at 552-53 ; Larsen , ¶¶ 44, 54 (discussing the priority of calls); § 70-20-201(2), MCA; Robillard & Bouman, Clark on Surveying and Boundaries § 21.”
Ash v. Merlette, 2017 MT 305 (Mont. 2017). · cites it 2× “3d 913 ; see also § 70-20-201(6), MCA (construction and effect of deed reference to map); Blazer v.”
Stidham v. City of Whitefish, 746 P.2d 591 (Mont. 1987). · cites it 3× “See Section 70-20-201, MCA. However, the District Court erred in establishing the disputed boundary between the shoreline as shown in the original survey and the shoreline as it is today.”
Shurtz v. Dalton Grove, 2021 MT 137N (Mont. 2021). · cites it 8× “¶12 The District Court also correctly concluded that § 70-20-201, MCA, gives priority to maps referenced by the deed of conveyance.”
Callsen v. Missoula Cnty., 2020 MT 176 (Mont. 2020). · cites it 6× “4 feet back from the River—take precedence or are paramount over lines pursuant to § 70-20-201, MCA. ¶8 The County asserts that in 1960 McPherson granted a right-of-way with River access to be held by Missoula County in trust for the public.”
Harbour v. Wanskasmith, 2020 MT 157N (Mont. 2020). “¶19 The District Court relied upon § 70-20-201(2), (6), MCA, which provides rules of construction for interpreting the descriptive part of a conveyance of real property, to resolve the ambiguity created in the 1972 Deed.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 70-20-201(1) — 3 cases
Olson v. Jude, 2003 MT 186 (Mont. 2003). “Olson suggests that § 70-20-201, MCA, applies in this situation.”
Ferriter v. Bartmess, 931 P.2d 709 (Mont. 1997). “Section 70-20-201, MCA, provides in relevant part: The following are the rules for construing the descriptive part of a conveyance of real property when the construction is doubtful and there are no other sufficient circumstances to determine it: (1)Where there are certain…”
Pilgrim v. Kuipers, 679 P.2d 787 (Mont. 1984). “The trial court concluded that “the Pierce survey, when modified according to correct surveying practices and the provisions of Section 70-20-201, MCA, not only will close, but will describe a tract of land retained by the grantor, Pilgrim, containing an acreage within 20/100th…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 70-20-201(2) — 4 cases
Larsen v. Richardson, 2011 MT 195 (Mont. 2011). “Application of the priority of calls is not one of “pick and choose” or “pick the one I want to suit the answer I need.” Robillard & Bouman, Clark on Surveying and Boundaries § 15:08A, 148 (Supp.”
Wohl v. City of Missoula, 2013 MT 46 (Mont. 2013). “2d at 552-53 ; Larsen , ¶¶ 44, 54 (discussing the priority of calls); § 70-20-201(2), MCA; Robillard & Bouman, Clark on Surveying and Boundaries § 21.”
Pilgrim v. Kuipers, 679 P.2d 787 (Mont. 1984). “The trial court concluded that “the Pierce survey, when modified according to correct surveying practices and the provisions of Section 70-20-201, MCA, not only will close, but will describe a tract of land retained by the grantor, Pilgrim, containing an acreage within 20/100th…”
Harbour v. Wanskasmith, 2020 MT 157N (Mont. 2020). “¶19 The District Court relied upon § 70-20-201(2), (6), MCA, which provides rules of construction for interpreting the descriptive part of a conveyance of real property, to resolve the ambiguity created in the 1972 Deed.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 70-20-201(4) — 1 case
Ferriter v. Bartmess, 931 P.2d 709 (Mont. 1997). “Section 70-20-201, MCA, provides in relevant part: The following are the rules for construing the descriptive part of a conveyance of real property when the construction is doubtful and there are no other sufficient circumstances to determine it: (1)Where there are certain…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 70-20-201(6) — 2 cases
Ash v. Merlette, 2017 MT 305 (Mont. 2017). “3d 913 ; see also § 70-20-201(6), MCA (construction and effect of deed reference to map); Blazer v.”
Shurtz v. Dalton Grove, 2021 MT 137N (Mont. 2021). “¶12 The District Court also correctly concluded that § 70-20-201, MCA, gives priority to maps referenced by the deed of conveyance.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.