Susan C. Harvey v. Addison H. Furrow Jr.
107 A.3d 604
Me.2014Background
- Harvey inherited a rectangular lot description adjoining Furrow’s irregularly shaped Mattanawcook Lake parcel; parties dispute an ~11-acre triangular strip between their deeds (Harvey: straight boundary; Furrow: elbow-shaped boundary).
- Harvey (and predecessors) used the disputed area for decades (garage partly on it, lawn, garden, fruit trees, road to lake, blazes, stone wall, fencing, taxes shown on town maps) beginning as early as 1950.
- Furrow and Lane hold record title under deeds and a Harris survey showing the elbow boundary; parties stipulated that the Harris survey depicts the Milner Farm boundary as shown in Furrow’s deed.
- Harvey sued to quiet title, alleging adverse possession, boundary by acquiescence, trespass, and slander of title; Furrow counterclaimed. After a bench trial the Superior Court awarded Harvey title by adverse possession (constructive possession) and some trespass damages; denied slander of title.
- On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed: it found color of title in Harvey’s deed (rectangular description), that Harvey and predecessors met all adverse-possession elements for 20+ years, and that treble statutory damages and slander were not established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Harvey) | Defendant's Argument (Furrow & Lane) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse possession / constructive possession — can Harvey obtain title to whole deed-described parcel by occupying part of it? | Harvey: deed describes a rectangle (color of title); long, continuous, open, exclusive adverse use of much of disputed area supports constructive adverse possession. | Furrow: superior deed/described Milner boundary (elbow) controls; Harvey’s uses are insufficient or too small to gain whole parcel. | Court: Affirmed — Harvey had color of title (latent ambiguity resolved to grantor intent) and satisfied all elements (actual, open, notorious, hostile, claim of right, continuous, exclusive) for 20+ years; constructive possession applies. |
| Boundary by acquiescence (Blakes/Harvey) | Harvey/Blakes: long acquiescence to a straight boundary supports boundary by acquiescence. | Furrow: stipulated survey controls; no acquiescence to different line. | Court: Did not need to resolve for Harvey because constructive possession resolved title; Blakes’ acquiescence discussed but no final judgment; not addressed here. |
| Statutory trespass (14 M.R.S. §7551-B and §7552) | Harvey: trial court misread §7551-B by requiring intent; seeks double/treble damages under §7552. | Furrow: acted believing he owned the land; not intentionally trespassing. | Court: Affirmed — §7551-B issue moot because recovery under §7552 bars §7551-B; treble damages under §7552 not warranted because Furrow lacked the requisite subjective knowing/intent to violate owner’s rights despite aggressive conduct. |
| Slander of title | Harvey: statements/actions by Furrow disparaged title with malice or reckless disregard, causing damages. | Furrow: believed he owned the land; actions lacked malice/knowing falsity. | Court: Affirmed trial court — Harvey failed to prove malice or reckless disregard; Furrow’s subjective belief he owned the land defeated slander-of-title element. |
Key Cases Cited
- Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd. v. Kelly, 654 A.2d 416 (Me. 1995) (adverse possession ordinarily limited to actually occupied area)
- Campbell v. Whitehouse, 120 A. 529 (Me. 1923) (constructive possession doctrine where claimant has color of title)
- Milligan v. Milligan, 624 A.2d 474 (Me. 1993) (latent ambiguity in deeds and rules to ascertain grantor intent)
- Weeks v. Krysa, 955 A.2d 234 (Me. 2008) (elements required for adverse possession and insufficiency of seasonal/occasional uses)
- Striefel v. Charles-Keyt-Leaman P’ship, 733 A.2d 984 (Me. 1999) (definitions of actual, open, visible, notorious, hostile, continuous, exclusive possession)
- Colquhoun v. Webber, 684 A.2d 405 (Me. 1996) (elements of slander of title)
- Dombkowski v. Ferland, 893 A.2d 599 (Me. 2006) (intent/claim-of-right principles in adverse possession)
- Dupuis v. Soucy, 11 A.3d 318 (Me. 2011) (statutory treble damages standard requires more than mere indifference; subjective culpability required)