Posts tagged "Fredette"

Bernier v. Fredette, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-044-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750;  (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us       12‑P‑1684                                       Appeals Court   BRYANT BERNIER[1] & another  vs.  NORMAN FREDETTE & others.[2] No. 12‑P‑1684. Suffolk.     November 6, 2013.  ‑  May 6, 2014. Present:  Kantrowitz, Graham, & Meade, JJ.   Real Property, Boundary, Deed.  Deed, Construction.  Surveyor.  Evidence, Expert opinion.  Witness, Expert.       Civil action commenced in the Land Court Department on August 4, 2008.   The case was heard by Gordon H. Piper, J.     Mark Bobrowski for David Bechtold. Richard E. Burke, Jr., for Norman Fredette & another. Marc R. Deshaies for the plaintiffs.       GRAHAM, J.  This boundary dispute originates from deeds granted beginning in 1870 and requires us to locate the common boundary between the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ Acushnet properties.  The plaintiffs commenced this action seeking to remove a cloud on their title pursuant to G. L. c. 240, §§ 6-10, seeking a declaration of the correct location of their common boundary, and seeking damages for trespass and nuisance.  The defendants filed counterclaims for trespass and nuisance. Following a three-day trial and a view of the relevant properties and monuments, the Land Court judge adopted the boundary proffered by the plaintiffs and awarded them nominal damages for trespass and nuisance.  The judge expressly limited the judgment to the parties named and served in this proceeding.  On appeal, the parties do not pursue any issue regarding their trespass and nuisance claims and only the boundary dispute is before us on the defendants’ appeal.  For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision of the Land Court judge. Background.  All of the property at issue is located off Hathaway Road in Acushnet and originally was owned by Samuel Wing, whose heirs subdivided the property and conveyed separate parcels over time.  The parcels are referred to by the parties pursuant to lot numbers designated on Acushnet Assessors’ Map 14 (map 14).  The current map 14 is not in the record, but the multiple plans submitted by the parties have adhered to the lot numbers set forth on map 14.  The judge attached to his decision the Bernier trial plan of lot 13 and lot 16 submitted by the plaintiffs following trial.  To orient the reader and for ease of reference, we attach the relevant part of the trial plan as an appendix. Samuel Wing’s substantial holdings included, at a minimum, what is now […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 7, 2014 at 2:08 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,