DERMOT GREALLY v. JOSEPH MORELLO, JR.

In this trespass action Dermot Greally (Plaintiff) seeks a declaration that a portion of a shed owned by Joseph Morello, Jr. (Defendant) encroaches upon his property. Plaintiff also requests relocation or removal of the shed so that it no longer encroaches, along with an award of surveying costs and filing fees. In his counterclaim Defendant alleges that he owns the property on which the shed is located by way of adverse possession. He also alleges that Plaintiff performed work on his property without permission, resulting in water infiltration in his basement. He seeks damages for this allegedly unlawful work by Defendant on his property as well as damages to replace a fence Plaintiff removed in 2001. The Court took a view on September 9, 2010, and trial was held on September 10, September 17, and November 2, 2010. Prior to trial the parties agreed that Defendant’s shed encroaches on Plaintiff’s property by 4.7 feet, as shown by a Plan of Land by Dresser, Williams & Way, Inc. dated March 9, 2007. They also agreed that Defendant’s shed constitutes a trespass if he is unable to prove ownership of the land on which the shed is located by adverse possession.

A Decision has entered this day ruling that the Defendant has not proven that he acquired ownership of the land where the shed is located by adverse possession. Defendant also did not show that Plaintiff’s digging activities resulted in damage to his property or that Plaintiff was not entitled to remove the fence between the properties in 2001. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant has not proven that he acquired ownership of the land where the shed is located by adverse possession and therefore the shed constitutes a trespass.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant must remove or relocate his shed within sixty days of the date of this Judgment.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the parties’ common boundary line is situated as shown by a Plan of Land by Dresser, Williams & Way, Inc. dated March 9, 2007.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant has not shown that Plaintiff’s digging activities resulted in damage to his property or that Plaintiff was not entitled to remove the fence between the properties in 2001 and therefore Defendant is not entitled to any damages for the digging or the removal of the fence.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of surveying costs and filing fees.

By the Court. (Trombly, J.)