Dombkowski v. Ferland - 2006 ME 24, 893 A.2d 599

Rule:

Under the common law, a party claiming title by adverse possession needs to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his possession and use of the property for a twenty-year period was actual, open, visible, notorious, hostile, under a claim of right, continuous, and exclusive.

Facts:

Edgar R. Ferland had owned his land for about five years. Marion J. Dombkowski had acquired his abutting parcel from his brother, who bought it in 1967. The brother had cleared brush and trees from the disputed area and maintained it as a lawn. From 1967 onwards, Dombkowski parked trucks in the disputed area. He drilled a well there five years before the action. Dombkowski testified that, before Ferland obtained a survey, he mistakenly believed that he held title to the land. Ferland appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court granting Dombkowski title by adverse possession to a disputed parcel of land to which Ferland holds record title, and enjoining Ferland from interfering with Dombkowski's use, possession, and enjoyment of the land. Ferland contends that: (1) the court erred in applying and interpreting 14 M.R.S. § 810-A (2005); (2) the court abused its discretion in admitting in evidence the entire transcript from the hearing for a preliminary injunction; and (3) there was insufficient evidence for the court to find actual possession and use of the entire disputed parcel for the twenty-year period required for an adverse possession claim. 

Issue:

Was there a sufficient evidence for the court to find actual possession and use of the entire disputed parcel for the twenty-year period required for an adverse possession claim?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment for Dombkowski. Section 810-A applied to the action although Dombkowski did not mention it in his complaint because there was only one adverse possession claim in Maine, to be made under the common law as amended by § 810-A. The trial court correctly applied § 810-A because its enactment removed the requirement that an adverse possession claimant must have the specific intent to claim another's land. To the extent that earlier cases held otherwise, they were overruled. The entire transcript from the preliminary injunction hearing was properly admitted at trial, and the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the twenty-year prescriptive period was satisfied.