MICHAEL F. O'CONNELL and NANCY E. O'CONNELL vs. PATRICK J. KNIGHT and NISSA R. KNIGHT
Sands, J.
Plaintiffs Michael F. OConnell (OConnell) and Nancy E. OConnell (together, Plaintiffs) filed their unverified Complaint on July 13, 2007, pursuant to G. L. c. 231A, § 1, alleging an actual controversy between them and Defendants Patrick J. Knight and Nissa R. Knight relative to the ownership of a small strip of land between the properties owned by Plaintiffs (Plaintiff Property) and Defendants (Defendant Property). Defendants filed their Answer on August 8, 2007.
This court held a pre-trial conference on August 20, 2008. Plaintiffs filed a Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of John Ryder on September 29, 2008, and Defendants filed their Opposition on September 30, 2008. On October 1, 2008, a site view was held and trial commenced at the Land Court in Boston. The second day of trial was held at the Land Court in Boston on October 2, 2008. Testimony for Plaintiffs was given by John Thomas Franklin (Franklin) (prior owner of Plaintiff Property), Naomi Pierce (prior owner of Plaintiff Property), and Michael OConnell (son of Plaintiffs and current resident of Plaintiff Property); testimony for Defendants was given by Nancy McCusker (granddaughter of prior owner of Defendant Property), John Ryder (prior resident of Defendant Property), Nissa Knight (Defendant), Michael F. OConnell (Plaintiff), and Patrick Knight (Defendant). Plaintiffs recalled Michael OConnell as a rebuttal witness. Forty-three exhibits were entered as evidence.
Defendants filed their post-trial brief on December 4, 2008, and Plaintiffs filed their post-trial brief on December 5, 2008, at which time the matter was taken under advisement. A decision of todays date has been issued.
In accordance with that decision it is:
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of John Ryder is DENIED.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the use of the narrow strip of land owned by Defendants, approximately three feet wide and ninety feet long, that runs along the entirety of the border between Plaintiff Property and Defendant Property (the Disputed Area), [Note 1] by Plaintiffs (and their predecessors in title) was not permissive.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs use of the Disputed Area was open and notorious.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs use of the Disputed Area was exclusive.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs actual adverse use of the Disputed Area began when Franklin moved into Plaintiff Property in July 1984.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendants interrupted Plaintiffs adverse use of the Disputed Area in the summer of 2007. [Note 2]
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs have established title by adverse possession with respect to all three sections of the Disputed Area.
By the court. (Sands, J.)
FOOTNOTES
[Note 1] The Disputed Area is separated into three sections. The first section (Section 1) is the rectangular strip of the Disputed Area between the rear lot line and the back corner of Defendants house and is bounded by a rear wooden fence on the westerly side, a three-foot high wooden fence (Fence 1) on the southerly side, a line parallel with the back of Defendants house on the easterly side, and the lot line between Plaintiff Property and Defendant Property on the northerly side.
The second section (Section 2) of the contested Disputed Area is the rectangular strip of the Disputed Area abutting Defendants house and is bounded by a line parallel with the back of Defendants house on the westerly side, Defendants house on the southerly side, a line parallel with the front of Defendants house on the easterly side, and the lot line between Plaintiff Property and Defendant Property on the northerly side.
The third section (Section 3) of the contested Disputed Area is the triangular portion of the Disputed Area originating from the front corner of Defendants house and is bounded by a line parallel with the front of Defendants house on the westerly side, the lot line between Plaintiff Property and Defendant Property on the northerly side, and a line extending in a southerly direction from a point (at which Plaintiff Property and Defendant Propertys front and side lot lines intersect) to the northerly corner of Defendants house. Until 2004, Section 3 was bounded, in part, by a wire fence running from the fence post (located near the northern corner of Defendant Property) to the northerly corner of Defendants house (Fence 2).
[Note 2] As a practical matter, Defendants purchased Defendant Property in August 2004, which, in and of itself, was more than twenty years after Franklin purchased Plaintiff Property and began using the Disputed Area in July 1984.