O'Hearne v. McCLAMMER
42 A.3d 834
N.H.2012Background
- Adjacent lots along Little Sugar River in North Charlestown; McClammer owns the southerly lot, O'Hearnes the northerly lot.
- Historical deeds traced boundary to river or monuments; 1790 deed excluded mill spot and referenced river for earlier bounds.
- 1929 deed to McClammer’s predecessor used artificial monuments (three south of river, two near north bank); one monument later removed by DOT during bridge replacement.
- O'Hearne chain consistently described boundary by monuments since 1936; McClammer's chain originated with a 1929 description.
- McClammer began removing trees north of monuments; O'Hearnes sought injunction; McClammer sought to quiet title claiming river thread or high-water boundary.
- Trial court ruled for O'Hearnes, concluding boundary by acquiescence and/or adverse possession, with Hinchliffe's over twenty-year acquiescence to O'Hearnes' boundary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the action was time-barred on the silent-asserted statute | McClammer: petition to quiet title timely; boundary by monuments supported by deeds. | O'Hearnes: adverse possession/boundary by acquiescence; statute applied to bar claim. | Boundary by acquiescence/title by acquiescence upheld; time-bar not dispositive. |
| Whether O'Hearnes acquired title by adverse possession or acquiescence | McClammer: no title by adverse possession; boundary by thread not proven. | O'Hearnes: Hinchliffe acquiesced; long-continued occupancy and recognition. | O'Hearnes acquired title via boundary by acquiescence (Hinchliffe's acquiescence). |
| Whether the 1929 deed analysis was properly used to locate the boundary | McClammer: 1929 description ambiguous and controlling; boundary mislocated. | O'Hearnes: 1929 deed evidence corroborates boundary markers and acquiescence. | Use of 1929 deed as boundary guide affirmed insofar as it supports boundary by acquiescence. |
| Whether McClammer holds title to the 'thread' or center of the river | McClammer: boundary at high-water mark; river thread grants land north of monuments. | O'Hearnes: monuments, not river thread, determine boundary; expert testimony disputed. | Claim to river thread not proven; boundary markers govern; no title to thread. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mastroianni v. Wercinski, 158 N.H. 380 (2009) (distinguishes adverse possession from boundary by acquiescence)
- Rautenberg v. Munnis, 108 N.H. 20 (1967) (boundary by acquiescence requires twenty-year recognition and occupation)
- Kessler v. Gleich, 156 N.H. 488 (2007) (trial court proper when error does not affect outcome)
- Blagbrough Family Realty Trust v. A & T Forest Prods., 155 N.H. 29 (2007) (acquiescence and boundary concepts distinguished from adverse possession)
- Richardson v. Chickering, 41 N.H. 380 (1860) (boundary by acquiescence rooted in long-standing adherence to boundary)
- SNCR Corp. v. Greene, 152 N.H. 223 (2005) (timing of raising issues; need to address claims early)