Case Title: N.A.S Holdings, Inc. v. Pafundi

Citation: 169 Vt. 437, 736 A.2d 780

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-07-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
N.A.S. Holdings, Inc. v. Pafundi (98-044); 169 Vt. 437; 736 A.2d 780

[Opinion Filed 02-Jul-1999]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 02-Aug-1999]

       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. 98-044

N.A.S. Holdings, Inc.	                           Supreme Court

                                                   On Appeal from
     v.		                                   Rutland Superior Court

Connie Pafundi	                                   January Term, 1999

Alden T. Bryan, J.

       Craig Weatherly of Gravel and Shea, Burlington, and Rosemary A. Macero
  of Callahan and Macero, Boston, Massachusetts, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

       Allan R. Keyes of Ryan Smith & Carbine, Ltd., and John E. McCamley of
  Medor & McCamley P.C., Rutland, for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       JOHNSON, J.  This is a case in which the unusual and complicated facts
  involved can  easily draw attention away from the relatively simple legal
  issues that are the key to resolving the  underlying conflict.  The dispute
  arises out of competing claims to ownership of a slate quarry  located in
  West Pawlet, Vermont.  Appellant Connie Pafundi challenges a ruling of the
  superior  court holding that she had established, through adverse
  possession, title to the floor of this quarry  but not to its walls. 
  Appellee N.A.S. Holdings, Inc. (N.A.S.), which holds record title to almost 
  the entire property, challenges the trial court's conclusion that appellant
  had 

 

  established adverse possession of the quarry floor, and vigorously opposes
  appellant's argument  that she has established adverse possession of the
  entire quarry.  We affirm in part and reverse  in part.

       Adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact.  See
  Montgomery v. Branon, 125  Vt. 362, 365,