MISC 06-321071

August 17, 2009


Trombly, J.


Plaintiff, The Hunter Farm, Inc. (Hunter) commenced this case on March 29, 2006, seeking to enjoin defendant Courtland Lippincott (Lippincott) from trespassing on a parcel of real property in New Braintree and seeking also damages for trespass to land. [Note 2] However, the issue before the court in this action, as has been presented by both parties, is the location of the boundary lines between parties’ properties.

Trial was held and completed on January 23, 2009. At trial, Lippincott filed a Motion for Leave to File Answer and Counterclaim Late, which was allowed (Trombly, J.) and the Answer and Counterclaim filed. The Counterclaim seeks declaratory judgment, pursuant to G.L. c. 231A, § 1, as to the location of the boundary lines. At trial, the parties moved jointly to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice in order to proceed solely on the issue of the location of the boundary lines. The court allowed the motion. Stenographer, Laurie Jordan was sworn to take the testimony. Testifying were Donald Para and Peter Adams for defendant and Thomas Fancy, John Hunter, and Nancy Burke for plaintiff. Exhibits 1-23 (including 17A) were admitted into evidence and Defendant’s Chalk was marked for identification.

After careful consideration of all of the evidence, the court issued a Decision today, ruling that the Para Plan correctly delineates the common boundary lines between the Lippincott Property and the Hunter Property.

In accordance with that Decision, it is hereby:

ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the common boundary lines between the Lippincott Property and the Hunter Property are as depicted on the plan of land, titled “Plan of Land in New Braintree, MA, Surveyed for Owner, Cortland S. Lippincott, Scale 1” = 60 feet dated January 11, 2001 prepared by Donald A. Para Land Surveyor, Incorporated,” and recorded at the Worcester District Registry of Deeds in Plan Book 779, Plan 59.

By the court (Trombly, J.).


[Note 1] If not specifically defined herein, each term carries the same definition employed in the Decision.

[Note 2] The Complaint as filed contained also a redacted count for confirmation of title to the property which is the subject of the dispute.