WILCOX v. SARRIS, Mass., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Abraham T. Handverger, for the defendant. Barnard Bachner Howard C. Abbott, for the plaintiffs.

Judges

LUMMUS, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiffs, Margaret A. Wilcox and her husband Charles E. Wilcox, filed a bill in equity alleging that they had acquired title to a disputed thirty-foot strip of land adjoining their lots in Millis by adverse possession. In 1923, Charles purchased lots 108 and 109 and an unnumbered strip east of those lots from the Millis Building Association, Inc. Although the deed conveyed the lots, it did not include the thirty-foot strip, which was reserved for a street. The plaintiffs occupied and used the strip openly and continuously from 1923 to 1949. Later, the disputed strip was conveyed by the Millis Building Association to Kerr, and then from Kerr to the defendant, George Sarris. The plaintiffs sought an injunction against the defendant’s interference, a declaration of title by adverse possession, and damages for trespass. A master’s report, which was confirmed, found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding damages for removal of a banking and the cost of replacing trees. The final decree established Margaret Wilcox’s title to the strip, enjoined the defendant from interference, and awarded damages. The defendant appealed.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the plaintiffs acquired title to the disputed thirty-foot strip by adverse possession under Massachusetts law.
Whether damages awarded for the cost of replacing trees removed by the defendant were appropriate, given the absence of evidence that the trees enhanced the land’s value.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Nantucket v. Mitchell, 271 Mass. 62, 68	Definition and requirements of adverse possession (actual, open, continuous possession under claim of right for statutory period).	The court relied on this precedent to uphold the finding that the plaintiffs’ possession met the statutory requirements for acquiring title by adverse possession.
Holmes v. Johnson, 324 Mass. 450, 453	Clarification of adverse possession standards and claims of right.	Used to confirm that the plaintiffs’ claim of right and possession sufficed to establish title despite lack of deed to the strip.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted the master’s findings that the plaintiffs had actual and open possession of the disputed strip under a claim of right continuously for over twenty years, satisfying the statutory requirements for adverse possession. The court noted that although Margaret Wilcox had no deeded title to the strip, the long and uninterrupted possession under claim of right established her ownership. Regarding damages, the court agreed with the master’s finding of $184 for damage caused by removal of a banking. However, the master’s award of $525 for replacing six large trees was reversed because there was no evidence that the trees enhanced the land’s value, making that portion of damages unsupported.

Holding and Implications

The court affirmed in part and modified the final decree: it confirmed the plaintiffs’ title to the disputed thirty-foot strip by adverse possession and enjoined the defendant from interference. However, it reversed the award of damages for tree replacement, striking out the $525 amount. The damages award was thus limited to the $184 for removal of the banking. The decision directly affects the parties by confirming title and limiting damages but does not establish new precedent beyond applying existing adverse possession law.

Show full summary ...

MARGARET A. WILCOX another vs. GEORGE SARRIS.

Adverse Possession and Prescription. Trespass. Damages, For trespass.

A conclusion that a woman had acquired title by adverse possession to a strip of land adjoining two lots on which she and her husband had their home was justified where it appeared that her husband had negotiated for a purchase of the lots and also the strip for a certain price, that a deed later received by her conveyed the lots but not the strip, and that continuously for more than twenty years after such negotiations she had bad actual and open possession of the strip under a claim of right. Damages awarded against a trespasser on land should not have included the cost of replacing trees which were removed by him but were not shown to have enhanced the value of the land.

LUMMUS, J.

The plaintiffs, a married couple, in their bill in equity, alleged that they have acquired title to a parcel of land in Millis by adverse possession, and pray for an injunction against acts of the defendant interfering with the plaintiffs' occupancy thereof, for an adjudication that they have acquired title thereto by reason of adverse possession, and for damages. The facts appear in the report of a master which was confirmed. In 1923 the male plaintiff Charles E. Wilcox bought from the Millis Building Association, Inc., lots 108 and 109 on a certain plan and an unnumbered strip to the east of those lots, for $250. He built a garage on lot 109 and a driveway from Main Street to the garage. The plaintiffs lived in the garage until 1925, when they moved into a house which they built on lot 108. In 1924 they made a vegetable garden on the northerly end of their land, and used the garden until the fall of 1949. In August, 1925, the Millis Building Association, Inc., gave a deed to Margaret conveying lots 108 and 109, but not a thirty foot strip easterly thereof, which was reserved for a street. Title to that strip is now in dispute between the parties.

In 1929 Millis Building Association, Inc., conveyed to one Kerr, and in 1941 Kerr gave a deed to the defendant Sarris purporting to convey the thirty foot strip adjoining lots 108 and 109 easterly. But the master found that the plaintiffs occupied the locus adversely and under a claim of right from 1923 to 1949, a period of twenty-six years, and gained title by adverse possession.

The master found that the plaintiffs suffered damage from the act of the defendant in removing a banking to the extent of $184. He found that the cost of replacing six large trees removed by the defendant would be $525. But he found that there was no evidence that the trees enhanced the value of the land in dispute.

A final decree was entered, establishing the title of the plaintiff Margaret A. Wilcox to the thirty foot strip in question, enjoining the defendant against interference with her possession and occupancy, and awarding said plaintiff damages in the amount of $184 plus $525. The defendant appealed.

No doubt the plaintiff Margaret had no title by deed to the disputed land. But the evidence warranted the finding of the master that her possession was actual, open, continuous for more than twenty years and under a claim of right. Nantucket v. Mitchell, 271 Mass. 62, 68. Holmes v. Johnson, 324 Mass. 450, 453.

The final decree is modified by striking out the item of damages of $525, the cost of replacing six large trees, and as modified is affirmed with costs of this appeal.

So ordered.

WILCOX v. SARRIS