This court case concerns a land dispute in Lincoln, Maine, specifically an eleven-acre triangular area on Mattanawcook Lake.

Background:
Susan C. Harvey (and her predecessors) claim ownership of the disputed land, asserting that her property line with Addison H. Furrow Jr. and Karen R. Lane is a straight line. Furrow and Lane, the record owners of an adjoining parcel, contend the boundary is an “elbow” shape, which includes the disputed area within their property. Harvey filed a complaint to establish title by adverse possession and boundary by acquiescence, along with claims for trespass and slander of title. Furrow and Lane counterclaimed for title confirmation, trespass, and slander of title.

Superior Court Decision:
The Superior Court ruled in favor of Harvey on her claims of adverse possession and acquiescence. It also found Furrow liable for common law trespass ($7500 plus interest and costs) and statutory trespass ($17,325 in double damages), but denied treble damages as it found Furrow’s actions were not intentional damage. The court ruled against Harvey on her slander of title claim and other statutory trespass claims.

Appellate Court Discussion:

• Constructive Adverse Possession: The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s finding that Harvey established title by constructive adverse possession.
  • Color of Title: Harvey’s deed, despite a latent ambiguity caused by a conflict with Furrow’s deed and a survey, was found to describe a rectangular parcel consistent with Harvey’s claim. This served as “color of title.”
  • Sufficient Use: The court found that Harvey and her predecessors demonstrated “actual, open, visible, notorious, hostile, under a claim of right, continuous, and exclusive” use of the property for over twenty years (dating back to 1950). This included having part of a garage on the land, maintaining a lawn, garden, fruit trees, and a road to the lake, and marking the boundary. These activities, considered in aggregate, were deemed “comprehensive and complete.”
• Boundary by Acquiescence: The court did not address this claim since it affirmed title by constructive adverse possession. It also did not address the Blakes’ (other parties in interest) boundary by acquiescence claim because they never formally asserted it.
• Harvey’s Statutory Trespass Claim (14 M.R.S. § 7551-B): The court found it unnecessary to rule on Harvey’s argument that the lower court misinterpreted this statute by requiring a knowing or intentional state of mind, because any recovery under this section was barred by the damages awarded under § 7552.
• Treble Damages (14 M.R.S. § 7552): The court affirmed the denial of treble damages, agreeing that Furrow’s actions, while “rash, ill-advised, and offensive,” did not demonstrate a “knowing or intentional” level of culpability required for treble damages. Furrow genuinely believed he owned the land.
• Harvey’s Slander of Title Claim: The court affirmed the denial of this claim. It found that Harvey failed to prove the element of “malice or reckless disregard of falsity,” as Furrow genuinely believed he owned the property described in his deed, even if his actions were aggressive.

Concurring Opinion:
Justice Alexander concurred, specifically to caution against a broad reading of the constructive adverse possession doctrine. He emphasized that in this case, the doctrine was appropriately applied because: (i) there was an incorrect deed that had long existed and provided color of title; (ii) the superior deed’s coverage was stipulated; and (iii) the adverse use was “comprehensive and complete” over a large portion of the disputed eleven-acre lot, not just a small part. He noted that the doctrine should not be used to claim large parcels based on minimal adverse use of a small portion.

Outcome:
The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed.

Summary by Gemini