Opinion ID: 2763907
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Harvey’s Claim for Slander of Title

Text: [¶25] Finally, Harvey contends that the trial court erred by concluding that she had failed to establish each of the elements necessary to establish Furrow’s liability for slander of title. As we have previously explained, 6 Case law applying an earlier version of the statute⎯which provided for treble damages when conduct was committed “willfully or knowingly” as opposed to “intentionally or knowingly”⎯required only a showing of “utter and complete indifference to and disregard for the rights of others.” Dupuis v. Soucy, 2011 ME 2, ¶ 22, 11 A.3d 318 (quotation marks omitted). Because “intentionally” requires a greater level of culpability than “willfully,” however, we have construed the current version of section 7552 as requiring something “more than an utter and complete indifference to and disregard for” the owner’s rights as a prerequisite to an award of treble damages. Id. (emphasis added). 18 [t]o prove slander of title a claimant must prove (1) there was a publication of a slanderous statement disparaging claimant’s title; (2) the statement was false; (3) the statement was made with malice or made with reckless disregard of its falsity; and (4) the statement caused actual or special damages. Colquhoun v. Webber, 684 A.2d 405, 409 (Me. 1996). We will uphold a trial court’s findings that the elements have not been met if those findings are supported by the record. See Rose v. Parsons, 2013 ME 77, ¶ 13, 76 A.3d 343. [¶26] Harvey asserts that the court misapplied the law by concluding that Harvey could not prevail on her claim because she derived her title by adverse possession. “[T]itle by adverse possession is a sufficient interest in property for a claimant to maintain an action for slander of title.” Colquhoun, 684 A.2d at 410. Our review of the trial court’s decision persuades us, however, that this was not the basis for the court’s decision. Rather, the court concluded that Harvey failed to prove each of the elements of slander of title, reasoning that Furrow’s actions did not rise to the level of statements made with malice or reckless disregard because Furrow actually believed he owned the property described in his deed. See Lester v. Powers, 596 A.2d 65, 71 (Me. 1991) (“Knowledge or disregard of falsity is a purely subjective state of mind.”). Contrary to Harvey’s assertion, the trial court’s finding that Furrow behaved “aggressively and prematurely” does not compel a finding that he acted with malice or reckless disregard. See Morgan v. Kooistra, 2008 ME 26, ¶ 34, 941 A.2d 447 (“A reckless disregard for the truth 19 exists only if the speaker had a high degree of awareness of the probable falsity or serious doubt as to the truth of the statement. Inadequate investigation into the truth of the statement is not enough to establish malice.” (citations omitted) (quotation marks omitted)). Because the court’s finding on this point is not clearly erroneous, see Ballard v. Wagner, 2005 ME 86, ¶ 16, 877 A.2d 1083, we need not address the remaining elements of Harvey’s claim for slander of title. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. ALEXANDER, J., concurring. [¶27] I concur in and join the Court’s opinion. I write separately because I do not want the Court’s opinion, reinvigorating the ancient doctrine 7 of constructive adverse possession or constructive possession, to be read to invite mischievous claims asserting ambiguity in deed descriptions to try to gain title by adverse possession to large amounts of land, based on proof of adverse use of a small portion of that land. 7 The precedents that the Court cites supporting the constructive adverse possession doctrine date from 1923, 1906, and 1861. The Court also cites a 1939 treatise that apparently has not been updated. 20 [¶28] The Court’s opinion notes correctly that “[t]ypically, an acquisition of title to property through adverse possession is limited to the area of property that has been actually occupied.” Court’s Opinion ¶ 7 (citing Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd. v. Kelly, 654 A.2d 416, 419 (Me. 1995)). That is the generally accepted principle in adverse possession cases; you can take title to what you have occupied adversely—and no more—if you prove that your occupancy for that time has been “visible and notorious” and “under a claim of right.” To prevail on a claim of adverse possession a claimant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his or her use of the property was (1) actual, (2) open, (3) visible, (4) notorious, (5) hostile, (6) under a claim of right, (7) continuous, and (8) exclusive for over twenty years. Weeks v. Krysa, 2008 ME 120, ¶¶ 12, 21, 955 A.2d 234 (holding that evidence of occasional, seasonal use of an undeveloped lot was insufficient to support an adverse possession claim). [¶29] Relying on the doctrine of constructive adverse possession, however, the Court holds that a person can obtain equitable title to an entire parcel if the parcel is described in the person’s deed and the person has occupied “a portion of that parcel in a manner sufficient to establish title by adverse possession.” Court’s Opinion ¶ 7 (citing Campbell v. Whitehouse, 122 Me. 409, 417, 120 A. 529 (1923); Banton v. Herrick, 101 Me. 134, 138-39, 63 A. 671 (1906); Brackett v. Persons Unknown, 53 Me. 228, 231 (1861); 4 Herbert T. Tiffany & Basil Jones, The Law of 21 Real Property § 1155 at 815 (3d ed. 1939) (stating that “one having ‘color of title,’ that is, claiming under what purports to be a valid muniment of title, although he actually occupies a part only of the tract covered by his muniment of title, is to be regarded as in possession of the whole tract”)). [¶30] This statement of the law of constructive adverse possession raises the possibility that a person could allege an ambiguity in a deed to encompass a much larger area than may have been conveyed,8 demonstrate use of a small portion of that property sufficient to support an adverse possession claim, and win title to the entire parcel. Thus, the parameters of the described doctrine of constructive adverse possession could be read to allow proof of adverse possession to one acre, plus proof of a deed ambiguity, to allow a litigant to gain title to a fifty or hundred acre parcel. However, neither the doctrine of constructive adverse possession nor the Court’s opinion should be read to allow proof of adverse possession to a small portion of a parcel to gain title to a much larger parcel. [¶31] In this case the trial court found, and the record fully supports, the determination that (i) color of title was established by a specific but incorrect deed that had long been in existence, (ii) the coverage of the superior deed, controlling the property description, was stipulated, and, most importantly, (iii) the evidence 8 Ambiguities are not difficult to suggest when deeds may refer to long departed monuments and roughly estimated angles, and small differences in estimated angles can translate to big differences in the land believed to be included in the boundary description. 22 supporting adverse possession demonstrated adverse occupancy and use of a large portion of the eleven acre lot, such that the “use of the property by Harvey and her predecessors was ‘comprehensive and complete.’” Because (i) the adverse use of the property in dispute was “comprehensive and complete,” (ii) the boundaries of the property actually conveyed by deed were stipulated, and (iii) the boundaries of the incorrect deed were found to be specific and supported use of the disputed property under color of title for a long period of time, the doctrine of constructive adverse possession was properly applied to convey title to the entire disputed parcel by adverse possession. Absent any one of these factors, application of constructive adverse possession would be difficult to support. On the briefs: Richard Johnson Jr., Esq., Edwards & Johnson, Lincoln, and Michael J. O’Toole, Esq., Woodman Edmands Danylik Austin Smith & Jacques, P.A., Biddeford, for appellants Addison H. Furrow Jr. and Karen R. Lane Paul W. Chaiken, Esq., and Robert W. Laffin, Jr., Rudman Winchell, Bangor, for appellees George Blake and Gloria Blake Knud E. Hermansen, Esq., Old Town, and Michael H. Griffin, Esq., Griffin & Jordan, LLC, Orono, for appellee Susan C. Harvey Edward C. Russell, Russell & Silver, P.A., Bangor, for appellees David Blake and Faith Blake (adopting brief of George Blake and Gloria Blake) 23 At oral argument: Michael J. O’Toole, Esq., for appellants Addison H. Furrow Jr. and Karen R. Lane Robert W. Laffin, Jr., for appellees George Blake and Gloria Blake Knud E. Hermansen, Esq., for appellee Susan C. Harvey Penobscot County Superior Court docket number RE-2008-5 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY