Thibault v. Vartuli, 82-306

• Decision Date: 07 June 1983
• Docket Number: No. 82-306,82-306
• Citation: 143 Vt. 178,465 A.2d 248
• Parties: Leonard R. THIBAULT, Romeo R. Thibault, Robert H. Thibault and the Federal Land Bank of Springfield v. Sylvester VARTULI, Flutrosa Vartuli and Antonia V. Billups Vartuli.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Page 248

465 A.2d 248

143 Vt. 178

Leonard R. THIBAULT, Romeo R. Thibault, Robert H. Thibault and the Federal Land Bank of Springfield v. Sylvester VARTULI, Flutrosa Vartuli and Antonia V. Billups Vartuli.

No. 82-306.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

June 7, 1983.

Bing, Bauer & Gravel, Burlington, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Harry L. Goetz, Winooski, for defendants-appellees.

Before BILLINGS, C.J., and HILL, UNDERWOOD, PECK and GIBSON, JJ.

PECK, Justice.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the Chittenden Superior Court in which title to a disputed parcel of land in Colchester, Vermont, was awarded to defendants. Plaintiffs claim that the evidence offered at trial was insufficient to allow the court to conclude that defendants held record title and, in the alternative, that defendants held title acquired through adverse possession. We affirm.

The parcel of land in question is a six acre plot adjacent to the Winooski River. Plaintiffs own a farm northwest of this plot, and the farm and the plot are separated by an old channel. The 1906 deed to a predecessor in title of plaintiffs describes the southern boundary of the farm as the Winooski River. Defendants hold record title to a piece of land described in their deed as "Pomeroy or Pearl Island" which their family bought in 1915. They claim that because of a change in the course of the river, Pomeroy Island is now a part of the mainland, but clearly identified nevertheless by the old channel, that the six acre disputed plot is actually Pomeroy Island and therefore they have title to it. The trial court found that the Winooski River probably changed course between 1887 and 1920, that Pomeroy Island is now a part of the mainland and is the disputed parcel, and that defendants have record title to it.

Defendants also presented evidence tending to show that, even if their record title was invalid, they had acquired title to the disputed parcel by adverse possession. Their family built a summer dwelling and two other buildings on it in the early 1920's, and an old cement foundation with the initials of one of the brothers of defendants carved into it still exists to show where the buildings were located. Defendants' family had a vegetable garden on the parcel annually from 1925 until the 1960's, and they still use the land for recreational activities every summer. Plaintiffs' immediate predecessors, who owned plaintiffs' farm for 40 years, believed that the land belonged to defendants and referred to the parcel as Vartuli Island. Defendants have always paid real estate taxes on the parcel.

The only issue presented for our consideration on appeal is whether the findings that defendants have title to the disputed land, by record title or by adverse possession, are supported by the evidence. The trial court made numerous and complete findings of fact to support its conclusion. Our standard of review in cases of this sort is that we will not set aside findings of fact unless, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and excluding the effects of modifying evidence, they are clearly erroneous. Blanchard v. Villeneuve, 142 Vt. 267, 269, 454 A.2d 1235, 1236 (1982); Cliche v. Cliche, 140 Vt. 540, 541, 442 A.2d 60, 61 (1982); V.R.C.P. 52. Applying this strict standard, plaintiff...