This action was commenced by the Plaintiff on June 11, 2001, seeking a declaratory judgment pursuant to G. L. c. 231A that she has acquired title to the disputed portion of Defendants property by adverse possession. [Note 2] In their answer, filed on June 28, 2001, the Defendants denied Plaintiffs claim and asserted three counter-claims against the Plaintiff, namely, (1) abuse of process; (2) violation of G. L. c 93A; and (3) nuisance.
The parties were referred to alternative dispute resolution by the court at a case management conference on December 5, 2001. After the parties determined they would not be able to reach a settlement, the case was returned to the active trial list on November 20, 2006. Both parties filed summary judgment motions, which were heard on June 22, 2009. After the Court denied the motions on grounds that too many issues of material fact remained, a three day trial was held on April 8, 2010, April 9, 2010, and April 14, 2010. Both parties filed their post-trial briefs on July 9, 2010.
A Decision was entered on this date, finding and ruling that the Plaintiff has not acquired title to any portion of the Defendants property by adverse possession. In accordance with that Decision, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff has not established title to any portion of the Defendants property by adverse possession; and it is further
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Complaint be, and is hereby, dismissed with prejudice.
By the Court. (Trombly, J.)
[Note 1] Words and phrases contained in this Judgment carry the same definitions as employed in the Decision.
[Note 2] For purposes of this Judgment, the Courts reference to the Plaintiff refers to both Joseph Tedesco, Sr. and Chew, and their use of the disputed parcel during the relevant period for purposes of tacking. See G. L. c. 260, § 22.