This opinion from the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine addresses an appeal regarding property boundaries and claims of title by acquiescence and adverse possession.

Background: The case involves two adjacent properties, one owned by Susan R. Hanscom and the other by Christopher and Diana Grondin, which were once part of a single larger parcel. A 1962 deed conveyed a “100-foot-wide parcel off the easterly side” to Hanscom’s predecessors, using a metes and bounds description that included conflicting calls (a specific bearing and parallelism to another line). This ambiguity led to two competing surveys: the Swallow survey, which resulted in a parallelogram-shaped Haney Lot with an angled eastern boundary, and the Marchese survey, which resulted in a rectangular Haney Lot with an eastern boundary aligned with the original parcel’s eastern line. A disputed triangular area (shaded triangle BCF in the diagram) arose from these differing interpretations. Hanscom had made various improvements within this disputed area since 1981, including a garage, driveway, pine trees, and a well.

Procedural History: The Grondins sued for a declaratory judgment to establish the common boundary based on the Marchese survey. Hanscom counterclaimed, also seeking a declaratory judgment for the boundary and alternatively claiming title to the disputed area through acquiescence and adverse possession. The Superior Court sided with the Grondins, accepting the Marchese survey, and found that Hanscom did not establish title by acquiescence due to a lack of a visible boundary line. The court did find partial adverse possession for Hanscom, but only for the specific footprint of her garage and driveway. Hanscom appealed these findings.

Discussion:

• Boundary Declaration: The appellate court reviewed the Superior Court’s acceptance of the Marchese survey for clear error. It affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding that the Marchese survey provided a “more complete and reasonable explanation” by reconciling ambiguities in the deed and prioritizing calls to borders over those of distance or degree. Crucially, the Marchese survey also aligned with the “likely intent” of the original conveyance, which was to transfer a rectangular 100-foot-wide strip, avoiding the creation of an impractical, limited-shore frontage remnant for the grantor that the Swallow survey would have produced.
• Title by Acquiescence: The court reviewed the lower court’s finding that Hanscom had not obtained title by acquiescence for clear error. To establish title by acquiescence, clear and convincing evidence of “possession up to a visible line marked clearly by monuments, fences, or the like” is required, along with notice, adjoining landowner’s acquiescence, and a long period of time. The appellate court upheld the lower court’s finding that, despite some blaze marks, the marks were ambiguous and the majority of the disputed area was overgrown, failing to meet the “visible line” requirement.
• Adverse Possession: Hanscom’s claim of adverse possession over the entire disputed area was reviewed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision, which granted adverse possession only for the garage and driveway footprint. While Hanscom’s use of these specific areas was actual, open, notorious, and continuous for the requisite 20 years, the court found insufficient evidence of such possession for the remainder of the overgrown, disputed area. The planting of pine trees and ambiguous blaze marks were deemed insufficient to impart notice, and the well installation in 2005 did not meet the 20-year statutory period.

Conclusion: The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, confirming the boundaries as established by the Marchese survey and upholding the limited finding of adverse possession to the garage and driveway, while denying the claims for broader adverse possession and title by acquiescence.

Summary by Gemini