Davis v. Davis
Decision Date | 23 July 1969 |
Parties | Fountain DAVIS and Celia Davis v. Roswell DAVIS et al. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Silsby & Silsby, by Frank B. Walker, Ellsworth, for plaintiffs.
Libhart & Cox, by Wayne P. Libhart, Brewer, for defendants.
This is an action under 14 M.R.S.A. Secs. 6655-6658 to quiet and establish title to land in Deer Isle and to remove a cloud from the title. The Court below found for the plaintiffs. Two of the defendants appealed; the others were defaulted.
The pertinent provision of 14 M.R.S.A. Sec. 6655 is that the plaintiff must establish uninterrupted possession of the land for four years or more, claiming an estate of freehold. The action is equitable in nature.
The Court in its 'Decree' said:
The Court did not note that the plaintiff Celia Davis was the wife of the plaintiff Fountain Davis, a child of John Davis. The Court in its 'judgment' also said:
'This Judgment and Decree shall operate directly on the above described land and real estate and shall have the effect of a deed of quitclaim from all defendants to the premises described herein.'
The defendants charge error, in the points of appeal;
(1) in finding possession in the plaintiffs since 1961;
(2) in ruling that 36 M.R.S.A. Sec. 946 was applicable; and
(3) in finding that the plaintiffs met their burden of proof.
Our decision turns on the second point of appeal.
36 M.R.S.A. Sec. 946, 1 which the Court applied in its decree, provides an action for establishing and confirming title acquired by a purchaser from a municipality, as here by the plaintiffs from Deer Isle. The action is available to the purchaser 'whether in possession of such real estate or not.'
An action specifically stated to be under the quieting title statute (14 M.R.S.A. Sec. 6655 et seq.) bears no direct relationship to an action under the tax title statute (36 M.R.S.A. Sec. 946). Under the quieting title statute, the plaintiffs must prove four years uninterrupted possession claiming an estate of freehold; under the tax title statute, no possession or claim of freehold need be shown.
We construe the findings of the Court to be that the plaintiffs did not have the four years uninterrupted possession of the quieting title statute. If the Court had found such possession, together with a claim of freehold, there would have been no reason to apply the tax title statute. We think it plain that the decision below would have been for the defendants, except for the use made by the Court of the tax title statute.
The plaintiffs brought their case under the quieting title statute. The complaint specifically states that 'This action is brought pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. Sec 6655-6658.' Not until the Court eliminated the possession as a factor by applying the tax title statute do we find any suggestion by either party that the case was not an action strictly under the quieting title statute.
Apart from the four year possession requirement there is a vital difference between the statutory actions. The parties are entitled to a jury verdict under the tax title statute, and not under the quieting title statute. 'The right of trial by jury as declared by the Constitution of the State of Maine or as given by a statute shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.' M.R.S.A. Rule 38(a).
The principle is familiar and long established...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sargent v. Coolidge
...v. McGown, 62 Me. 56 (1873); Farley v. Bryant, 32 Me. 474 (1851). See also Perron v. Lebel, Me., 256 A.2d 663 (1969); Davis v. Davis, Me., 255 A.2d 903, 905 (1969). "A deed which, through the ignorance or heedlessness of the scrivener, misrepresents the bargain between the parties, may doub......
-
Bigney v. Blanchard
...to bringing an action to quiet title, see Harrington v. Inhabitants of Town of Garland, Me., 381 A.2d 639 (1978); Davis v. Davis, Me., 255 A.2d 903 (1969).3 Rule 50. Motion for judgmentA motion for judgment may be made at the close of the evidence offered by an opponent or at the close of a......
-
Lewien v. Cohen
...an action under section 6651 or section 6655. Marshall v. Walker, 93 Me. 532, 45 A. 497 (1900) (construing section 6651); Davis v. Davis, Me., 255 A.2d 903 (1969) (construing section 6655). Accordingly, disseizin is an incongruous allegation in a quiet title proceeding, and damages for lost......
-
Harrington v. Inhabitants of Town of Garland
...of the land described in the complaint for 4 years or more, claiming an estate of freehold therein." 14 M.R.S.A. § 6655; See Davis v. Davis, Me., 255 A.2d 903 (1969). While appellants alleged uninterrupted possession for four years in their complaint, the allegations were denied by the Town......