Cumpston Research

The best products at the best prices!

Watson Cumpston death cert Trinity House Hull lloyds ship Voilier withernsea pier

Barbara CUMPSTON Delta Colorado

You can read the full text of this case at 1 P.3d 752 (2000) 


Barbara CUMPSTON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert NEIRINCKX, Defendant-Appellant. No. 98CA0761. Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.


January 20, 2000. Certiorari Denied June 12, 2000.

753*753 Aaron R. Clay, Delta, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee


Leonard W.D. Campbell, Montrose, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant


Opinion by Judge CRISWELL.[*]


In this declaratory judgment action, defendant, Robert Neirinckx, appeals from the decree entered in favor of plaintiff, Barbara Cumpston, in which the court declared that the location of a quarter section corner as determined by the county surveyor was correct. We affirm.


Plaintiff owns a parcel of land lying north of one owned by defendant. The deeds to both parcels use metes and bounds descriptions that start with the east quarter corner of Section 19, T. 13 S., R. 94 W. of the 6th Principal Meridian.


In 1972, a surveyor located this quarter corner and established a monument (the 1972 monument) to mark its location. However, approximately 22 years later, plaintiff and several other landowners in the neighborhood asked the county surveyor to establish that corner. The county surveyor first decided that the original monument designating that quarter corner had been "obliterated," and he then determined that its true location was 10.6 feet south of the 1972 monument. He established a new monument in that location.


When defendant refused to recognize the new monument as the true location of the pertinent quarter corner, plaintiff filed a complaint seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that the monument established by the county surveyor defined the true and correct location of the east quarter corner of Section 19.


After an evidentiary hearing, the court concluded that the required procedures for establishing a quarter corner monument had properly been followed and that the quarter 754*754 corner as located by the county surveyor was supported by the "majority of all of the physical evidence." The court also rejected defendant's claim of adverse possession to the 10.6 feet of ground that he had been possessing, based upon the location of the 1972 monument.




We have reviewed, but find no merit in, defendant's remaining contentions.


The judgment is affirmed.


Judge MARQUEZ and Judge RULAND concur.


[*] Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of the Colo. Const. art. VI, sec. 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S.1999.