Christopher Grondin v. Susan R. Hanscom
106 A.3d 1150
| Me. | 2014Background
- The Decker Lot was split in 1962 by a deed conveying a 100-foot-wide strip (the Haney Lot) off the easterly side; the deed described courses, distances, and stated intent to convey a 100-foot strip.
- Susan Hanscom acquired the Haney Lot in 1980; the remainder of the Decker Lot was later conveyed to Christopher and Diana Grondin in 2006.
- Competing surveys produced different boundaries: Swallow found a westward-leaning parallelogram (favoring Hanscom); Marchese found a rectangular strip aligned with the Decker Lot’s eastern line (favoring the Grondins). The disputed area is a small triangle between the two lines.
- Hanscom made improvements and uses: year-round residence since 1981, garage and driveway built in 1983 (within disputed area by Grondins’ view), row of pine trees planted in 1985, and a well installed in 2005. Much of the disputed area remains overgrown.
- Superior Court accepted Marchese’s survey, held Hanscom failed to prove title by acquiescence, and granted adverse possession only for the garage and driveway footprint. Hanscom appealed; the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper boundary line (which survey controls) | Hanscom: Swallow survey correctly locates the 100-ft strip (parallelogram) | Grondins: Marchese survey correctly aligns the strip with Decker Lot eastern line (rectangle) | Court accepted Marchese survey; boundary follows Decker Lot eastern line as rectangle (affirmed) |
| Title by acquiescence | Hanscom: long possession and blazes/plantings show a visible line and recognition | Grondins: markings and plantings are ambiguous; no visible, accepted line | Court found no clear-and-convincing evidence of possession up to a visible line; acquiescence fails |
| Adverse possession (extent) | Hanscom: open, notorious, continuous possession of the disputed triangle since 1981 | Grondins: use was limited (garage/driveway); rest was overgrown and not open/notorious; some acts too recent | Court held adverse possession only for actual occupied/improved area (garage and driveway); not for remainder of disputed area |
Key Cases Cited
- Matteson v. Batchelder, 32 A.3d 1059 (Me. 2011) (standard of review for boundary findings)
- McGrath v. Hills, 662 A.2d 215 (Me. 1995) (surveyor testimony and prioritizing abutting calls over distances)
- Howe v. Natale, 451 A.2d 1198 (Me. 1982) (adjoining boundary as controlling monument)
- Proctor v. Hinkley, 462 A.2d 465 (Me. 1983) (absurd results where deed leaves negligible lake frontage)
- Dowley v. Morency, 737 A.2d 1061 (Me. 1999) (elements and limits of acquiescence; adverse possession limited to actually used area)
- Weinstein v. Hurlbert, 45 A.3d 743 (Me. 2012) (elements and review standards for adverse possession)