Opinion ID: 2051583
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Plat Map Boundaries

Text: The plaintiffs' final contention on appeal is that the trial justice erred in how she interpreted the plus-or-minus boundary designations used in the plat map as granting to plaintiffs a variable northern and southern property boundary. The plaintiffs argue that the plus-or-minus designation was merely a tool used on plat maps to address slight or unimportant inaccurac[ies]. Furthermore, they suggest that a plus-or-minus designation refers to a variation of not more than one unit of the last significant digit. The trial justice, on the other hand, found as a matter of fact that these plus-or-minus designations should be interpreted as giving to plaintiffs that amount of land left over   [,] and that the plat map intended that the plaintiffs take that land left over after the other lots in the plat were laid out. This interpretation of the plus-or-minus designations, so the trial justice found, reconciled the SAI survey to the plat map, whereas plaintiffs' interpretation of the plus-or-minus designations arguably would extend this dispute to some, if not all, of the other landowners in the platted subdivision. This [c]ourt, in essence, would be holding that all of the property lines of those persons owning land to the east of plaintiffs were originally platted as being ten feet farther east. Once again, we note that our standard of review of the findings of fact by a trial justice in a non-jury case is deferential. We shall not disturb such findings unless they are clearly wrong or unless the trial justice has overlooked or misconceived relevant and material evidence. Barone v. Cotroneo, 711 A.2d 648, 649 (R.I.1998) (mem). And we reiterate that the determination of where the boundaries lie for a particular parcel of real estate is a question of fact, to be determined by the fact-finder. See Essex, 90 R.I. at 459, 159 A.2d at 613. We agree with plaintiffs that a possible interpretation of the plus-or-minus designations was to cover slight or inconsequential errors in the plat drafting. The trial justice, however, found as a factual matter that the use of the plus-or-minus designations by the plat-map drafter in this case represented a greater possible deviation. She believed that the plus-or-minus designations connoted a remainder approach to the sizing of the end lots on the plat map and that, given the fixed boundaries of the interior lots, this interpretation comported more fully with the plat-map drafter's intent. We have no basis to conclude that the trial justice clearly erred in this broader but reasonable interpretation of the plus-or-minus designations. Because we show great deference to the trial justice's findings of fact, we decline to reverse her on this score. Moreover, we conclude that the trial justice's decision comports with this Court's holding in Co-Operative Building Bank v. Hawkins, 30 R.I. 171, 73 A. 617 (1909) (collecting cases). In Hawkins, this Court interpreted a deed that used the word about in relation to the length of a boundary line. We are of the opinion that the use of the word about in Hawkins is analogous to the plus-or-minus designations in the plat map at issue before us. Therefore, we look to the Hawkins interpretation of about to inform our review of the trial justice's interpretation of the plus-or-minus designations. According to the Hawkins Court, such effect should be given to that word [about] as will carry out the intention of the parties. Id. at 184, 73 A. at 622. Moreover, the Court held that [t]he use of this word [or the plus-or-minus designation] in descriptions, as in its ordinary use, indicates that exactness is not attempted, and that an estimate is intended to be given   . [I]t is notice to all that, to carry out the intention of the parties, an elasticity may be given to the call in regard to which the parties have not considered it advisable to be exact. Id. at 186, 73 A.2d at 623. (Emphasis added.) It is our opinion that the trial justice's factual finding that the plus-or-minus designations resulted in plaintiffs' possessing a remainder lot size, after fixing the other lots' measurements, comports with the Hawkins Court's explanation of the parties' use of intentional imprecision in the drafting of land documents. Therefore, we reject the plaintiffs' allegations of error as unpersuasive, and refuse to reverse the trial justice's findings.