McCartney v. Burns, 21-cv-1474

Plaintiff Misty McCartney and Defendants David Burns and Melissa Haberman own adjacent properties in Vermont, split by a gravel driveway (the "shared drive") that crosses both properties.
Both parties conceded in pleadings that the drive is shared, but its exact bounds, width, and terms of use had never been formally established due to vague deed language and changes over time.
The dispute involved persistent, intentional conduct by Mr. Burns intended to frustrate and annoy Ms. McCartney, including parking in ways that blocked her access and other harassing behaviors.
Ms. McCartney filed suit for declaratory/injunctive relief and damages for trespass, nuisance, and other causes; defendants counterclaimed for essentially mirror-image relief.
The court tried the case in 2024-2025, including agreed cross-claims for nuisance and reforming the parties’ deeds to clarify the easement.
Significant evidence supported that the 1974 deed's easement description was mistaken as to its width/location and failed to reflect actual usage and parties’ intent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Boundary/Scope of Easement	Deed’s 20-ft easement was mistaken, should be narrower and reflect actual shared use	Drive should run solely/largely on McCartney’s land; broader access allowed	Deed reformed: shared right-of-way is 15 feet wide, across both properties
Trespass	Burns intentionally parked/blocked access, causing harm	Any trespass by defendants was insubstantial/trivial	McCartney awarded $950 for property damage, $50 nominal for trespass
Nuisance	Persistent, unreasonable interference by Burns amounted to abatable private nuisance	Conduct not serious enough for nuisance/aggravation	Nuisance found; $15,000 awarded for annoyance, discomfort, inconvenience
Injunctive/Declaratory Relief	Court should clarify boundary, usage, and enjoin further misbehavior	Plaintiff has also trespassed; mutual rights exist	Court issues permanent injunction and declaration clarifying shared rights

Coty v. Ramsey, 149 Vt. 451 (1988) (nuisance damages include annoyance, discomfort, and inconvenience even without bodily harm)
Harris v. Carbonneau, 165 Vt. 433 (1996) (liability for intentional entry on another's land without privilege as trespass)
LaRock v. Hill, 131 Vt. 528 (court may reform deeds to reflect parties’ true agreement where mistake shown)
Churchill v. Capen, 84 Vt. 104 (historical delineation of property rights and right-of-way scope)
Cassani v. Hale, 187 Vt. 336 (deed reformation and extrinsic evidence)