Brown v. Entin

Decision Date23 February 2022
Docket Number21-P-70
Parties Craig A. BROWN & another v. Jeffrey S. ENTIN, trustee, & another.
CourtAppeals Court of Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

After a five day jury-waived trial, a Superior Court judge resolved a boundary dispute in favor of plaintiffs Craig A. Brown and his wife Jessica E. Brown (collectively, Browns), finding that they had established title to a disputed area of about four acres of land (disputed area). The judge found that the disputed area had been deeded twice, first in 1913 as part of a parcel sold to the Browns’ predecessor-in-title, and again in 1921 as part of a parcel sold to the predecessor-in-title of defendants Jeffrey S. Entin and his wife Theresa A. Entin (collectively, Entins), as trustees of the Entin Inter Vivos Trust. The Entins appeal, arguing that the judge: (1) erred in determining the southern boundary of the Browns’ property, because he did not credit testimony of defense witnesses that certain stones were the remnants of a wall; (2) improperly struck testimony that the surveyor who did work in connection with the 1913 deed was "very poor" in measuring distances; (3) should have allowed the Entins’ postjudgment motion for a view; and (4) should have permitted postjudgment discovery for deposition of the former owner of the Browns’ property. We affirm.

Background. The following were facts found by the judge, supplemented by other details adduced at trial. After Franklin Phillips (Phillips) died in 1912, his real property was appraised as consisting of "[a]bout [six and one half] acres of land and buildings thereon on Jerome St. Berkley" and a "[w]oodlot, Jerome St. Berkley, [twenty-eight] acres." To satisfy his debts, the Probate Court ordered his estate to sell the former parcel. It was sold in 1913 to Florence G. Delano, and the deed described the property as:

"a lot on the west side of Jerome Street, containing six and one half acres more or less and bounded, on the north by land of George E. Westgate by a wall; on the west by woodland formerly of Franklin Phillips by a wall, on the south by wood lot formerly of Franklin Phillips by a wall and by land of Charles F. Phillips, on the east by said Jerome Street" (emphasis added).

The southern boundary of that property, and to some degree the western boundary, were in dispute at trial. The Browns trace the chain of title to their property back to that 1913 deed.

In 1921, Phillips's heirs sold about six acres of land to his brother Charles. That deed mentioned no buildings and no wall along its northern boundary. The Entins trace their chain of title back to that deed.

The Browns bought 58 Jerome Street in 2009. It included a house with six rooms that was built before 1912. In 2010, they hired professional licensed surveyor Robert S. Staples to survey their property. While performing that survey, Staples noted that the area to the west was swampy and stony, consistent with the "woodland" described in the 1913 deed, and the area to the south contained cut and stacked wood, consistent with its having been used as a "wood lot." Staples's survey determined that the Browns owned 6.13 acres of land.5 That survey was recorded in the Registry of Deeds in 2010, and Staples opined at trial that it accurately represented the boundaries of the Browns’ property. Between 2010 and 2016, the town used Staples's survey in assessing the Browns’ property. The Browns erected a wire fence at the southern boundary of their property.

In 2016, Jeffrey Entin signed a purchase and sale agreement to buy 52 Jerome Street from the estate of Nora Cox, whose heirs lived out of State.6 At that time, there were no structures on the property. Subsequently the Entins took title to the property and transferred it into the trust.

The Entins retained professional licensed surveyor Otis Dyer to survey their property.7 At the time, Dyer did not realize that the deed for the Browns’ property described a stone wall on its southern boundary, and so the survey he produced in January 2017 did not depict any wall there. Jeffrey Entin wrote to the Browns, enclosing a copy of Dyer's January 2017 survey and demanding that they take down their fence. At Jeffrey Entin's request, and based on Dyer's January 2017 survey, the town revised the assessed boundary line of the Browns’ property.

After the Browns filed their complaint to quiet title, the Entins obtained another survey from Dyer. This one, dated June 2017, depicted the southern boundary of the Browns’ property in a different location than had Dyer's two prior surveys. The newly located boundary was denoted on Dyer's June 2017 survey as "[f]ound [r]emains [o]f [w]all." Craig Brown had walked in that area many times and never saw any organized or continuous line of stones. The Browns’ expert geologist opined that there was no stone wall there.

Craig Brown obtained from the Berkley Historical Society a copy of an 1895 map that depicted Phillips's property as having two buildings. One of them was the house in which the Browns lived. In the area corresponding to a barn on the 1895 map, Craig Brown found a large rectangle of stones. Using a metal detector, he found remnants of tools including a pitchfork end, an axe head, and scythe blades. That barn was located within the disputed area.

The judge credited the 2010 survey compiled by the Browns’ surveyor, Staples. The judge found that the disputed area had been deeded twice, first as part of the six and one-half acres sold in 1913 to the Browns’ predecessor-in-title, and again as part of the six acres sold in 1921 to the Entins’ predecessor-in-title, and ruled that the earlier deed controlled. The judge explicitly declined to credit the surveys by the Entins’ surveyor, Dyer, or his testimony about the remnants of a stone wall where he had placed the Browns’ southern boundary. The judge found that those stones were not in fact a wall, but only "stones strewn on the ground, neither piled nor aligned into a formation resembling a stone[ ]wall." Judgment for the Browns entered, and the Entins appealed.

The Entins moved to alter or amend the judgment, Mass. R. Civ. P. 59 (e), 365 Mass. 827 (1974), arguing that the judge should take a view of the property and change his finding about the absence of a stone wall. The judge denied the motion. The Entins filed notice of appeal.

The Entins then moved to reopen the evidence, Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) (2), 365 Mass. 828 (1974), to take the deposition of the former owner of the Browns’ property. That motion was supported by an affidavit of Jeffrey Entin relaying that, in a telephone conversation after trial, the former owner had described a stone wall on the property. The judge denied the motion, and the Entins did not appeal.

Discussion. 1. Sufficiency of evidence. The Entins argue that the judge's findings of fact were clearly erroneous and an abuse of his discretion, because he declined to credit the testimony of defense witnesses that the assortment of stones identified by Dyer were the remnants of a stone wall that constituted the southern boundary of the Browns’ property.

Because the judge was the trier of fact, we accept his findings unless shown to be clearly erroneous, and we give due regard to his opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses. Mass. R. Civ. P. 52 (a), as amended, 423 Mass. 1402 (1996). The Browns bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence their title to the disputed area. See Bernier v. Fredette, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 265, 269 (2014). "When a boundary line is in controversy, it is ‘a question of fact on all the evidence, including the various surveys and plans ... where the true line originally ran, and was to be established.’ " Paull v. Kelly, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 673, 679 (2004), quoting Hurlbut Rogers Mach. Co. v. Boston & Me. R.R., 235 Mass. 402, 403 (1920). "The location on the ground today of what was described in the [1913] deed ... presents a question of fact, ... to be decided ‘on all the evidence, including various surveys and plans.’ " Bernier, supra at 268, quoting Hurlbut Rogers Mach. Co., supra at 403. "It was for the judge to decide whether upon all the testimony and evidence it was more accurate to rely on one expert over another or ancient plans over more recent plans." Bernier, supra at 268. See Holmes v. Barrett, 269 Mass. 497, 502 (1930).

As to the Browns’ southern boundary, the 1913 deed described the property as bounded "on the south by wood lot formerly of Franklin Phillips by a wall and by land of Charles F. Phillips." The judge credited Staples's testimony and his 2010 survey, which placed the Browns’ southern boundary at a stone wall and extending from it to another stone wall near Jerome Street, along the line where Craig Brown had erected the wire fence. The judge found that placing the Browns’ southern boundary in that location meant that it "lines up with a wall, which abuts a parcel then owned by Charles Phillips and currently owned by the Entins."

The judge declined to credit the testimony of the Entins’ surveyor that stones depicted in photographs were the remnants of a wall, which would have placed the Browns’ southern boundary farther to the north. It was for the judge to decide whether to credit the testimony of the Browns’ surveyor, Staples, over that of the Entins’ surveyor, Dyer.8 See Bernier, 85 Mass. App. Ct. at 268.

As to the Browns’ western boundary, the 1913 deed described the property as bounded "on the west by woodland formerly of Franklin Phillips by a wall." The Entins argue that because there was no evidence that Phillips ever owned the land to the west, the judge's finding as to the western boundary of the Browns’ property was clearly erroneous, and this error infected his findings as to the southern boundary. The argument is unavailing, because the parties stipulated that a "strong New England stone wall" runs along the western boundary of the disputed parcel. As Staples...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT