Donna Banville v. Peter Brennan
2014 R.I. LEXIS 12
R.I.2014Background
- Banville owns 1692 Eagleville Rd in Tiverton; Brennans own adjacent lot at 1710 Eagleville Rd, boundaries historically observed by Banville and predecessors.
- Medeiros survey (2007) located boundary roughly along a row of trees; Brennans' building extended beyond this line at one corner.
- Banville had used the tree line boundary since 1984 and placed an electric fence along that line.
- Brennan encroached by moving encroaching structures and placing boulders after Murgo survey; Banville hired Medeiros to re-survey.
- Trial court found Medeiros line to be the boundary; acquiescence and adverse possession theories were discussed as alternatives; injunction and $30,000 damages for diminution in value awarded.
- On appeal, Supreme Court affirmed, addressing acquiescence as dicta but sustaining Medeiros boundary and damages ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Location of boundary line between parcels | Banville contends boundary follows Medeiros line. | Brennans contend tree line/acquiescence defines boundary. | Medeiros line is boundary; acquiescence not controlling |
| Recovery for diminution in value due to encroachment | Damages permitted for permanent or temporary encroachment based on diminished value. | Damages limited to cost of removal or restoration. | Damages for diminution in fair market value upheld; not limited to restoration cost |
Key Cases Cited
- DelSesto v. Lewis, 754 A.2d 91 (R.I. 2000) (boundary by acquiescence requires boundary marker and ten-year recognition)
- Acampora v. Pearson, 899 A.2d 459 (R.I. 2006) (acquiescence requires boundary marker used for boundary purposes)
- Pucino v. Uttley, 785 A.2d 183 (R.I. 2001) (recognition of boundary may be inferred from silence or acts)
- Nye v. Brousseau, 992 A.2d 1002 (R.I. 2010) (mixed questions of law and fact; boundary location is a fact question)
- Tortolano v. DiFilippo, 349 A.2d 52 (R.I. 1975) (temporary vs. permanent damages distinction for real property)
- Bridges v. Mulligan Irrevocable Trust, 44 A.3d 116 (R.I. 2012) (damages for land harm may include diminution in value)
- D’Ellena v. Town of East Greenwich, 21 A.3d 389 (R.I. 2011) (deferential standard of review for trial court findings)