Todd H. Maddock & a. v. Michael J. Higgins

Holding

• Whether the monuments controlled the deeded boundary. The monuments did not establish the boundary as a matter of law because neither the deeds nor plans identified them, the parties had not agreed to use them as boundary markers, and their origins were uncertain.
• Whether the plaintiffs established color of title through site plans. The plaintiffs did not establish color of title because the hand-drawn site plans did not reliably or accurately define the disputed tract’s boundaries.
• Whether the plaintiffs adversely possessed the wild portion of the disputed area. The plaintiffs failed to establish adverse possession of the wild, undeveloped portion of the disputed area because the use was not sufficiently notorious, continuous, and exclusive for the required period.
• Whether the plaintiffs adversely possessed the driveway and parking area. The plaintiffs adversely possessed the portions of the driveway and parking area extending into the defendant’s property.
• Whether the plaintiffs adversely possessed the limited snow-removal area. The plaintiffs did not establish adverse possession of the limited adjacent area used for snow removal, but they retained the prescriptive easement granted by the trial court.
• Whether the plaintiffs established a boundary by acquiescence. The plaintiffs failed to establish a boundary by acquiescence because they did not prove that the parties occupied land up to, and recognized, the claimed monument line for at least twenty years.