Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Peloquin v. Ciaccia
Citations: 413 A.2d 799; 1980 R.I. LEXIS 1515Docket: 76-389-Appeal
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island; April 14, 1980; Rhode Island; State Supreme Court
In Emil Peloquin et al. v. Michael Ciaccia et al., the Supreme Court of Rhode Island addressed a boundary-line dispute where the defendants, Michael and Domenica Ciaccia, appealed a nonjury judgment from the Superior Court that awarded the plaintiffs, Emil and Murielle Peloquin, ownership of a disputed land parcel and costs for a new fence. The case involved two triangular parcels, designated as parcel L (owned by the Ciaccias) and parcel S (claimed by the Peloquins). The Peloquins argued they had acquired title to parcel L through long-standing acquiescence to a boundary line established by a fence they erected in 1958, which remained unchallenged until 1972 when the Ciaccias removed it. Testimony indicated that the Peloquins used parcel S continuously during this period, while the Ciaccias denied ever seeing the fence. The trial justice found that the fence existed for fourteen years with the knowledge and consent of the Ciaccias' predecessors, thus establishing the boundary by acquiescence. The court ruled in favor of the Peloquins, awarding them parcel L and the costs for a new fence. The Ciaccias appealed, arguing that the trial justice misinterpreted evidence regarding the fence's erection and that Peloquin's claim to only parcel S undermined his claim to parcel L. The court noted that in Rhode Island, a boundary line can be established through a landowner's acquiescence, provided the fence has been in place for ten years and acknowledged by the parties involved. The Ciaccias contended that the Peloquins did not present sufficient evidence of such acquiescence to support the trial justice's decision. To uphold the defendants' position, it must be established that the trial justice erred in concluding that the evidence indicated the defendants had accepted the location of the boundary line. The record does not support this conclusion. Mr. Peloquin testified that he built a fence on parcel L in 1958, which remained undisturbed until 1972. He provided photographs from 1959 to 1963 as evidence of the fence's existence. Two witnesses confirmed they observed the fence from 1958 to 1971, and a surveyor noted evidence of the fence's prior existence and estimated its location. Peloquin also stated that no predecessors of the defendants objected to the fence, with the Anisewskis even adding to it. Thus, there is sufficient evidence supporting the trial justice's findings regarding the fence's existence during the statutory period and the defendants' acceptance of its location, validating the decision that the fence delineates the boundary between the properties. However, the judgment awarding the entire parcel L to the plaintiffs is not supported by trial evidence, as Peloquin specified he and his wife were only claiming parcel S, indicating that the claim was based on the fence's location, which is only 8 feet of it. Therefore, the judgment should reflect the trial justice's finding that the fence is the agreed-upon boundary, awarding plaintiffs only parcel S instead of parcel L. The court affirms the trial justice's ruling that the fence serves as the new boundary and directs an evidentiary hearing to establish its exact location. The appeal is partially sustained and partially denied, with instructions for amendment of the judgment to award parcel S and to determine the fence's precise location. An appendix will follow.