NICHOLAS G. CURUBY and W. PHILIP RICE vs. TOWN OF NORTH READING.

On February 14, 1989, Nicholas G. Curuby and W. Philip Rice ("Plaintiffs") filed this action, pursuant to G.L. c. 60, §76, seeking to redeem approximately 5.2 acres of land located at the rear of Parsonage Lane in North Reading, shown as Parcel No. 15 on Map 55 of the North Reading Assessors' Maps ("Locus"), which property was taken by the Defendant Town of North Reading ("Defendant" or "Town") in 1988 for nonpayment of real estate taxes.

The matter was tried on March 29 and May 4 of 1990, at which times a court-appointed reporter recorded, and later transcribed, the proceedings. The Plaintiffs presented testimony from Erik Anderberg, Esq., title examiner, Peter Ogren, land surveyor and W. Philip Rice, Esq., Plaintiff. The Defendant offered testimony from Patricia Lambert, Esq., title examiner and Michael Marsh, Esq., an attorney specializing in real estate matters. Fifty (50) exhibits were accepted into evidence and nine (9) chalks (Chalks "A" through "I") were submitted to assist the Court. All exhibits and chalks are incorporated herein for purposes of any appeal.

The Plaitiffs herein allege that Locus is in fact owned by Nicholas G. Curuby and that, accordingly, he is entitled to redeem the property.

On all of the evidence before the Court, I make the following findings of fact:

1. At some time, the Town of North Reading had assessed Locus to "Owners Unknown" and, in 1988, made a tax taking of Locus against the same.

2. The Plaintiffs claim title to Locus through a chain commencing with the deeds, in 1780, from Benjamin Hammond, Jr. to Dudley Porter and from said Porter to William Whitredge, a/k/a Whitteredge, of certain land previously owned by one Nathan Flint.

3. The position of the Town is that Locus is included in land previously owned by one William Flint and that the line between the land of said William Flint and that of the aforesaid Nathan Flint includes the southerly boundary of Locus, Locus never having been in the chain claimed by the Plaintiffs.

4. The bulk of the evidence supports the position of the Town and I find accordingly that the southerly boundary of the land formerly of William Flint, and consequently the northerly boundary of the land formerly of Nathan Flint, is as determined by the land surveyor for the Town, and that said line constitutes the southerly boundary of Locus.

5. Locus is within the westerly portion of the property formerly of William Flint, which consisted of approximately 55 acres and which passed to his son, Josph Flint and then to Jonathan Nurse by deed. The portion of this 55 acre parcel which included Locus passed from Nurse's estate to Joseph Frie in 1757. Frie conveyed 21 3/4 acres of this parcel, including Locus, to John Mackentier. There is no deed of record of any portion of this land out of said Mackentier, a/k/a McIntire, although there is evidence of an unrecorded deed of 16 acres to William Whitteredge, dated 1770. This deed does not, however, include Locus.

It thus follows that Locus is located outside, and north of, the former Nathan Flint property. I find, therefore, that the Plaintiff Curuby has no title to Locus as alleged.

In consideration of the foregoing, I find and rule that the Town correctly assessed Locus to "Owners Unknown" and that no title thereto rests in the Plaintiff Curuby.

Judgment accordingly.