Case Title: Lakeview Farm, Inc. v. Enman

Citation: 166 Vt. 158, 689 A.2d 158

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-01-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
Lakeview Farm, Inc. v. Enman  (95-324); 166 Vt. 158; 689 A.2d 158

[Filed 10-Jan-1997]

       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.

                                 No. 95-324

Lakeview Farm, Inc. and                           Supreme Court
Maurice and Rita Martel
                                                  On Appeal from
     v.                                           Chittenden Superior Court

David and Sandra Enman                            September Term, 1996

Merideth Wright, J.

Andrew D. Mikell and William E. Mikell, Burlington, for plaintiffs-appellees

Robert F. O'Neill and Erik B. FitzPatrick of Gravel and Shea, Burlington, for
  defendants-appellants

PRESENT:  Allen, C.J.,(FN1)  Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

       GIBSON, J.  Defendants David and Sandra Enman appeal a Chittenden
  Superior Court order that confirmed the boundary line of plaintiffs Maurice
  and Rita Martel's land, Lakeview Farm.  The Enmans contend that (1) the
  evidence was insufficient to show the boundary was established by
  acquiescence, (2) the court erred in finding that a description in earlier
  deeds must refer to holdings in an adjoining town, (3) the court erred in
  giving effect to a second "corrective" deed in the chain of title, and (4)
  the court abused its discretion when it imposed sanctions for introducing a
  new theory of ownership during the trial.  We affirm, but vacate the
  court's award of attorney's fees.

       The Martels purchased their farm in St. George in 1955, on which they
  currently run a herd of dairy cattle, grow crops, and harvest timber. 
  David and Sandra Enman purchased adjoining land to the west in 1985.  Soon
  after the Enmans' purchase, a dispute arose between

 

  the families when the Enmans attempted to enter property claimed by the
  Martels and use the logging roads.  After the second entry, Maurice Martel
  bulldozed an earthen berm across a trail to prevent future encroachment.

       In 1989, the Town of St. George conducted a town-wide property
  reappraisal.  The tax map prepared during the reappraisal showed a portion
  of land claimed by the Martels (hereinafter referred to as the disputed
  parcel) as belonging to the Enmans.  The Martels appealed the assessment to
  the town listers and the Board of Civil Authority, which assessed the
  property to the Martels in 1991.  The Enmans claimed title to the parcel,
  however, and the Martels filed suit to seek judicial confirmation of their
  boundary.  In December 1993, the trial court concluded that the boundary
  claimed by the Martels had been established by acquiescence and that the
  Enmans' theories of ownership were without merit.  In addition, the court
  ordered the Enmans to pay the Martels $17,548.66 in attorney's fees and
  costs.  This appeal followed.

       The dispute centers primarily on conflicting evidence in the Enmans'
  chain of title.  In 1967, Anson Peet, Jr., a predecessor in title, deeded
  his property to David Boardman and Raymond Pecor.  The deed stated that the
  property contained ninety-five acres and noted the land was bounded on the
  east by land belonging to the Martels and Homer Murray.  On September 6,
  1983, Boardman and Pecor deeded the property to Champlain College,
  repeating the area as ninety-five acres and the eastern adjoining
  landowners as the Martels and Murray.

       Soon after the 1983 conveyance, John Marsh surveyed the property for
  Champlain College.  He concluded that the boundary between the College's
  new purchase and the Martels' farm was a meandering fenced and blazed line
  following, in part, a series of rock ledges and located well west of the
  Murray line.  (See diagram.)  In December 1994, Boardman and Pecor executed
  a "corrective deed" to Champlain College.  This deed was "for the sole
  purpose of correcting a prior deed . . . dated September 6, 1983" and noted
  that the former deed "was not properly witnessed or acknowledged, and
  contained an inaccurate description of the property." This deed decreased
  the acreage to forty-eight acres.  In January 1985, the Enmans purchased

 

  the land from Champlain College with a deed referring to both
  Boardman-Pecor deeds, but noting that "[a]lthough prior deed descriptions
  may have referred to the parcel of land containing 95 acres, more or less,
  the parcel in fact contains approximately 48 acres, more or less."

       The Enmans first contend that the trial court erred when it concluded
  the boundary was established in the Martels' favor by acquiescence,
  asserting that the issue was not raised before the trial court.  We
  disagree.  Although not presented during trial, acquiescence was argued by
  both parties in post-trial memoranda.  The Enmans themselves raised the
  issue in a memorandum dated February 10, 1993; the Martels responded with a
  memorandum two weeks later.  Thus the issue was argued by both parties and
  presented to the court well before the court's decision of December 6,
  1993.  Neither party can claim lack of notice of the court's consideration
  of the acquiescence doctrine.  See Potwin v. Tucker, 126 Vt. 414, 418,