Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court; December 13, 2004; Massachusetts; State Appellate Court
James Hall died intestate in 1735, resulting in his real property in Raynham passing to his sons, Edmund and David. A boundary dispute has arisen between Mary Jane Pauli, trustee of SMND Realty Trust (tracing her title to Edmund), and Kelly C. Kelly, trustee of Pine Realty Trust (tracing her title to David), concerning a 7.7-acre parcel between their properties. Pauli's property lies south of the disputed parcel, while Kelly's is to the north.
On appeal from a declaratory judgment favoring Pauli, Kelly contends that the Land Court judge incorrectly determined the boundary location, placing it 393 feet north of her proposed location. Kelly asserts two main arguments: (1) the prior unsuccessful attempt by Pauli’s predecessor to define the boundary bars the current action based on issue or claim preclusion, and (2) the judge improperly relied on abutter calls from a deed related to a third party's property (the Perez Hall property) to establish the boundary.
The court affirmed the lower judgment. Both parties agree on the general boundaries of their properties relative to the Perez Hall property. Pauli claims the boundary aligns with the undisputed northern boundary of the Perez Hall property, while Kelly argues that Pauli has not proven her claim. The existing deeds do not definitively establish the boundary, describing properties by acreage estimates and abutter calls. Pauli references Huldah Hall’s will from 1834, which described her homestead as approximately 60 acres, whereas Asa Hall's subsequent deed to Nathan Williams specified the property as 50 acres. Modern surveying suggests that if Pauli's boundary is accepted, the original Huldah Hall farm would be approximately 58.6 acres, while Kelly's proposed boundary would reduce it to 50.4 acres.
In 1987, Pauli’s predecessors attempted to establish ownership of a disputed parcel through a registration proceeding, which concluded with the judge dismissing their petition due to insufficient proof of the northerly boundary. The judge noted that while the predecessors failed to prove title, no determination was made regarding Kelly’s predecessors' claim, and he suggested involving the Hall heirs in any future litigation over the parcel. Following this, Pauli filed a declaratory judgment action to determine the boundary favorably to Pauli against Kelly. Kelly moved for summary judgment, arguing that the prior registration decision barred this new action due to issue preclusion. However, the same judge denied this motion, clarifying that the earlier ruling did not establish the boundary.
The case proceeded to trial before a different judge, where Pauli introduced an 1839 deed from the Perez Hall property chain, which was not part of either party's title but described pertinent boundary lines. The trial judge determined that the deed provided sufficient evidence to establish the disputed boundary in favor of Pauli, asserting that the disputed parcel was originally part of Pauli’s property. A judgment was issued declaring the northern boundary as the dividing line between Pauli’s and Kelly’s parcels, thus granting ownership of the disputed parcel to Pauli. Kelly, arguing that the prior registration proceeding conclusively established the boundary against Pauli’s position, contended that res judicata principles precluded Pauli from revisiting the boundary issue. However, this interpretation misapprehended the scope of the prior decision and its implications for future boundary determinations.
The preclusive effect of a prior failed registration attempt is governed by G. L. c. 185, § 44, which stipulates that if a court finds the plaintiff lacks proper title for registration, a judgment will dismiss the complaint, potentially without prejudice. Such a dismissal binds the parties regarding any fact issues that have been tried and determined. In this case, the complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and the boundary's location was not definitively tried or determined, allowing Pauli to pursue the boundary dispute in the current action.
G. L. c. 185, § 44 distinguishes between dismissals with and without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice means the failed registration does not preclude future registration attempts or other title determinations. The judge noted a lack of credible evidence to establish the northern boundary but did not resolve the boundary's location, indicating that future litigation could address this issue. Therefore, despite the absence of the explicit phrase "without prejudice," the statute does not bar Pauli from establishing the boundary.
The disputed boundary's location was at issue but not conclusively determined in the registration proceeding. The prior registration failed due to insufficient proof from Pauli’s predecessor, not because the boundary was fixed. The judgment from the registration action left the boundary question open for further resolution, and the failure to demonstrate ownership did not negate any title interest.
Kelly contends that the judge improperly prioritized abutter calls in the Perez Hall deed when determining property boundaries. However, the hierarchy of deed interpretation supports the judge's decision, as descriptions referencing monuments take precedence over those based on courses, distances, or areas. In this case, the trial testimony did not clarify the disputed boundary, leading the judge to rely on deed interpretations. The appellate court retains the same interpretive authority as the Land Court.
Both Pauli’s and Kelly’s property deeds are neutral regarding ownership of the disputed parcel. Descriptions indicate that Pauli's land is bounded by Perez Hall to the west and Kelly's property to the north, while Kelly’s land is bounded by Perez Hall to the south, suggesting either could claim ownership. Furthermore, the deeds do not utilize courses and distances as a method of boundary description, rendering them ineffective for boundary determination.
Discrepancies in area estimations do not conclusively support either party's claim. The language in the deeds indicates that area is not a reliable measure for ownership determination. Given the ambiguity in the deed descriptions, the judge appropriately considered the abutter calls in the Perez Hall deed as extrinsic evidence. These calls clarify the northern boundary by detailing its course along Kelly's southern line to Nathan Williams' land, identifying Williams as the eastern abutter and providing a specific measurement from the disputed parcel's northwest corner. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of Pauli.
Edmund and David's lack of documentation regarding the division of their father's property led to reliance on later deeds and probate records during their dispute. Abutter calls, which describe property boundaries in relation to neighboring owners, were referenced. Kelly initially claimed the boundary was 393 feet south of Pauli's designation but has since conceded she cannot substantiate this claim. A previous action by Pauli to establish title was dismissed, and the Land Court clarified that a decree of land registration differs fundamentally from a declaratory judgment regarding land ownership. If Pauli had registered her title successfully, it would have been treated as superior to any other claims. However, her success in the current declaratory judgment only establishes her claim as superior to Kelly's, without affecting non-parties' rights.
Evidence including a 'deed research plan' and testimony from various experts regarding property markers was deemed insufficient for registration by the Land Court judge, who determined that no conclusive boundary was established. The judge emphasized that the registration's dismissal did not preclude the current declaratory judgment regarding the boundary. Kelly's reliance on Dugan v. Wellock was deemed inapposite as it addressed adverse possession, not boundary location. The inclusion of the Perez Hall deed was appropriate, as it was relevant to the unresolved boundary question, and recitals in ancient deeds are admissible evidence. The Land Court found the description in the Perez Hall deed significant for establishing property rights, concluding that the boundary location as described was within acceptable error margins based on a land surveyor's testimony. This finding was not considered clearly erroneous.
