Case Title: Pion v. Bean

Citation: 176 Vt. 1, 2003 VT 79, 833 A.2d 1248

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-08-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
Pion v. Bean  (2002-179); 176 Vt. 1; 833 A.2d 1248

2003 VT 79

[Filed 29-Aug-2003]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 1-Oct-2003]

  NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
  40 as well as formal  revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. 
  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of  Decisions, Vermont Supreme
  Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors  in
  order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.

                                 2003 VT 79

                                No. 2002-179

  Leita and Roland Pion                              Supreme Court

                                                     On Appeal from
       v.                                            Franklin Superior Court

  Kevin Bean and Tina Clapper                        January Term, 2003

  Ben W. Joseph, J.

  Peter F. Langrock and Susan M. Murray of Langrock Sperry & Wool,
  Middlebury, for  Plaintiffs-Appellants.

  Michael Rose, St. Albans, for Defendants-Appellees.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley (FN1), Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and
  Gibson, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.  SKOGLUND, J.   Plaintiffs Leita and Roland Pion appeal from the 
  trial court's order in this boundary dispute and tort action.  Plaintiffs
  contend that  the trial court erred in: (1) establishing the northern
  boundary of defendants' lot;  (2) finding for defendants on their claims of
  invasion of privacy, infringement of  riparian rights, and conversion; and
  (3) awarding compensatory and punitive damages to  defendants.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  Plaintiffs and defendants own adjoining residential lots in St. 
  Albans, Vermont.  Plaintiffs' lot, less than one acre in size, resembles an
  upside-down  "u."  It surrounds defendants' one-quarter-acre lot (B/C lot). 
  Both parcels front  Vermont Route 36 on the south; the parties dispute the
  northern, western, and eastern  borders of the B/C lot. 

       ¶  3.  In August 2000, plaintiffs filed a complaint to quiet title. 
  They  asked the court to establish the boundaries of the B/C lot consistent
  with a survey  they had prepared.  They also sued defendants for trespass
  and unlawful discharge of  sewage.  Defendants filed counterclaims against
  plaintiffs, raising allegations of  trespass, infringement of riparian
  rights, intentional infliction of emotional  distress, invasion of privacy,
  and nuisance.  Defendants requested injunctive relief,  compensatory
  damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.  Defendants later amended 
  their counterclaim to add a claim for removal of trees from their property.   

       ¶  4.    Following a trial by court, in a March 2002 order, the court
  established  the boundaries of the B/C lot consistent with a survey
  provided by defendants,  rejecting the survey submitted by plaintiffs.  The
  court also awarded defendants  compensatory and punitive damages on their
  conversion and invasion of privacy claims,  and granted injunctive relief
  and compensatory damages on their infringement of  riparian rights claim. 
  This appeal followed.

       ¶  5.  Plaintiffs argue on appeal that the trial court erred in: (1) 
  establishing the northern boundary of the B/C lot; (2) granting injunctive
  relief, and  awarding damages for infringement of riparian rights based on
  a finding that plaintiffs  were responsible for groundwater appearing in
  defendants' basement; (3) awarding treble  damages for conversion of two
  trees from defendants' property; (4) holding them liable  for invasion of
  privacy; and (5) awarding punitive damages.  Given the multiple claims  of
  error raised, we address each issue and its underlying facts in turn.  

       ¶  6.  We first address the parties' boundary dispute.  The facts 
  supporting this claim are as follows.  The B/C lot was created in 1949 when
  Mrs. Pion's  grandfather subdivided his property.  The deed describes a lot
  bounded by four iron  posts, with the following dimensions:  eighty-nine
  feet between the southwest and  northwest corner pins, sixty-nine and
  one-half feet between the northwest and northeast  corner pins, sixty feet
  between the northeast and southeast corner pins, and fifty-nine  and
  one-half feet between the southeast and southwest corner pins.  According
  to the  deed, the northwest and northeast corners of the B/C lot are
  located at ninety-degree  angles formed by the intersection of the northern
  boundary with the western and eastern  boundaries.  

       ¶  7.  The original posts marking the northeast and northwest corners
  of  the lot no longer exist, and the parties presented conflicting evidence
  about the  posts' location.  Plaintiffs argued that their survey, prepared
  by Steven Brooks in  April 2000, accurately depicted the lot's northeast
  and northwest corners.  At trial,  Brooks described the method he used to
  ascertain the property's northern boundary.  He  testified that he began
  his survey at a buried iron marker in the southwest corner of  the lot that
  had been pointed out by Mr. Pion.  Following the distance specified in the 
  deed, Brooks then installed a new iron marker eighty-nine feet north of the
  first  marker.  At that point, Brooks discovered that he could not "close"
  the survey using  the distances, courses, and specific angles found in the
  deed.  Brooks testified that,  if the northern boundary of the property
  were to meet the western and eastern  boundaries at right angles, the
  distances would be incorrect; if he followed the  distances in the deed,
  the angles would be incorrect.  Consequently, following  surveying
  conventions, Brooks let the distances called for in the deed control over
  the  angles, and prepared his survey accordingly. 

       ¶  8.  In support of their claimed northern boundary, defendants
  submitted  a 1995 survey map that had been prepared for the installation of
  a new septic system  (Benchmark survey).  The survey map, drawn to scale,
  depicts two iron pins in the  northwest and northeast corners of the B/C
  lot.  The pins identified on the Benchmark  survey are farther north than
  those depicted in the Brooks survey.  Defendants  maintained that the pins
  identified in the Benchmark survey accurately represented the  missing
  northwest and northeast corner pins. 

       ¶  9.  Defendant Bean, and four prior residents of the B/C lot,
  testified  that they had observed the pins in locations consistent with the
  Benchmark survey map.  Bean stated that, when he purchased the B/C lot in
  1998, the pins were in the same  location as depicted in the Benchmark
  survey.  Bean stated that the northeast corner  pin had been located eight
  feet north and two to three feet east of the northeast  corner of his
  garage.

       ¶  10.  Previous residents of the B/C property testified similarly. 
  Richard  Buro, who lived in the B/C house between 1965 and 1986, testified
  that the northeast  corner pin used to be located six feet north and two
  feet east of the B/C garage.   Douglas Larson, who lived in the B/C house
  between 1990 and 1994, testified that the  northeast corner of the lot had
  been marked by an iron pin about nine feet north and  three feet east of
  the back of the B/C garage.  Deborah Larson testified that the  northeast
  corner pin had been located about three feet east and nine feet north of
  the  B/C garage, and the northwest corner pin had been in a brook behind
  the B/C house.  Ann  Putnam, who owned the B/C lot between 1994 and 1997,
  testified that the northeast  corner pin had been located about nine feet
  north and three feet east of the northeast  corner of the B/C garage.  She
  stated that the northwest corner pin had been located in  the stream bed,
  two to three feet west of the north-south property line that had been 
  defined by a stone wall.  Mrs. Putnam testified that the Benchmark survey
  accurately  depicted where she perceived the B/C lot boundaries to be. 

       ¶  11.  In 1999, plaintiffs filled in the streambed behind the B/C
  house,  and installed a culvert.  Bean, Mrs. Putnam, and other prior
  residents of the B/C lot,  testified that the pins they had previously
  observed were missing when they visited the  B/C lot in May 2000. 

       ¶  12.  Based on this and other evidence presented at trial, the court 
  established the B/C lot's boundaries.  The court concluded that the iron
  pins shown in  the Benchmark survey were the original artificial monuments
  installed at the creation  of the B/C lot, and that plaintiffs had removed
  these markers when they filled in the  streambed.  The court found the
  Benchmark survey's depiction of the pins' location  consistent with
  testimony from defendants and prior owners of the B/C lot.  The court 
  therefore established the northern boundary of the B/C property as a
  straight line  running between the two pins identified in the Benchmark
  survey.

       ¶  13.  The court rejected Brooks' opinion regarding the northern
  boundary  because it conflicted with credible circumstantial evidence
  establishing the original  monuments as shown on the Benchmark survey.  The
  court found that Brooks had ignored  the monuments, and instead started his
  survey at a pin pointed out by Mr. Pion.  The  court also found Brooks
  unreliable because he changed his testimony mid-trial, and his  trial
  testimony conflicted with his own survey map.

       ¶  14.  Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in relying on 
  defendants' "septic sketch," rather than the Brooks' survey, in
  establishing the B/C  lot's northern boundary.  They  maintain that the
  Benchmark survey, and the testimony  of Bean and prior B/C owners, was too
  imprecise to support the court's finding.   Plaintiffs also argue that the
  evidence does not support the court's finding that the  pins shown on the
  Benchmark survey are the original northwest and northeast markers.  
  Plaintiffs make brief reference to the court's determination of the B/C
  lot's western  boundary, but they do not specifically challenge any of the
  findings underlying the  court's conclusion.  We therefore decline to
  address this argument.  See Johnson v.  Johnson, 158 Vt. 160, 164, n.*, 605 A.2d 857, 859 n.* (1992) (this Court will not  consider arguments not
  adequately briefed). 

       ¶  15.  The court's determination of a boundary line is a question of
  fact  to be determined on the evidence.  Monet v. Merritt, 136 Vt. 261,
  265,