Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed a boundary dispute involving adjoining properties in Jamestown, including claims of adverse possession and challenges to the interpretation of plus-or-minus measurements on a plat map. The court upheld the trial justice's exclusion of decedent statements under the hearsay rule, rejection of the mowed-grass line as insufficiently definite for adverse possession, and interpretation of the plat boundaries. The plaintiffs' appeal was denied and dismissed, and the defendants' appeal concerning third-party claims was not reached.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial justice abused her discretion by excluding statements allegedly made by the deceased plaintiff concerning the boundary stakes under Rhode Island Rule of Evidence 804(c).
- Whether the evidence concerning a cut-grass line established the elements and boundary necessary for adverse possession.
- Whether the trial justice correctly interpreted the plus-or-minus designations on the plat map as permitting lot 22 to receive the remainder after the fixed boundaries of adjoining lots were established.
- Whether the Supreme Court should reach defendants' appeal from dismissal of their third-party claims when defendants failed to object at trial and the issues became moot.
Holdings
- The trial justice did not abuse her discretion in excluding the decedent's alleged statements because the record supported a lack-of-good-faith finding under Rule 804(c), and plaintiffs failed to make an offer of proof establishing the statements' materiality. Any error would also have been harmless.
- The trial justice properly rejected plaintiffs' adverse-possession claim because the evidence did not establish by clear and convincing evidence a sufficiently definite, stable, and particularized boundary or otherwise satisfy the requirements of adverse possession.
- The trial justice did not clearly err in interpreting the plus-or-minus designations for lot 22 as allowing its northern and southern dimensions to vary and making lot 22 a remainder after the fixed boundaries of the adjoining lots were laid out.
- The Supreme Court did not reach the merits of defendants' challenge to dismissal of their third-party claims because defendants failed to object at trial, thereby waiving the issue, and the claims were moot in light of the disposition of plaintiffs' appeal.
Key quotations
“"the admission of evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial justice and will not be disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of that discretion."” (798 A.2d at 931)
“"an aggrieved party challenging the ruling of the trial justice additionally bears the supplemental burden of establishing that the questioned evidence was material"” (798 A.2d at 931)
“"actual, open, notorious, hostile, under claim of right, continuous, and exclusive."” (798 A.2d at 931)
“"such effect should be given to that word [about] as will carry out the intention of the parties."” (798 A.2d at 934)
“"The use of this word [or the plus-or-minus designation] in descriptions, as in its ordinary use, indicates that exactness is not attempted, and that an estimate is intended to be given * * *. [I]t is notice to all that, to carry out the intention of the parties, an elasticity may be given to the call in regard to which the parties have not considered it advisable to be exact."” (798 A.2d at 934)
Factual background
The Boy Scouts of America originally owned the adjoining Jamestown parcels, which were subdivided in 1941 by a recorded plat map. William P. Norton purchased lot 22 in 1981, and George and Jeannine Courtemanche purchased the adjoining lot 20 in 1992 and hired SAI Surveying Company to stake their boundaries before constructing a house. Norton claimed that the house encroached on lot 22 and alternatively claimed a disputed ten-foot strip by adverse possession based principally on a regularly mowed grass line. The trial justice found that the SAI survey line was the actual boundary, that the plus-or-minus dimensions on lot 22 made it a remainder lot after fixing the adjoining lots, and that the evidence did not establish a sufficiently definite and permanent adverse-possession boundary.
Procedural history
William P. Norton filed an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages concerning the boundary between adjoining Jamestown properties. After his death, Claire M. and Catherine Norton, co-administrators of his estate, were substituted as plaintiffs. Following a nonjury trial, the Superior Court found that the SAI survey line was the actual boundary, rejected the adverse-possession claim, excluded statements attributed to the decedent, and entered judgment for the defendants; it also granted judgment for the third-party defendants on defendants' third-party claims. The Supreme Court summarily decided the appeals, affirmed the judgment on the plaintiffs' claims, and declined to reach the defendants' waived and moot third-party-claim issues.