Dombkowski v. Ferland
893 A.2d 599, 2006 Me. LEXIS 28, 2006 ME 24 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under 14 M.R.S. § 810-A, a person claiming title by adverse possession who occupies land under a mistaken belief about the boundary line does not need to prove a subjective intent to claim title to the land. The possessor's mistaken belief and 'conditional' intent to hold the land only if it were theirs do not defeat the claim, as the statute eliminates the common law inquiry into the possessor's state of mind.
Facts:
- In 1967, Anthony Dombkowski purchased property in Burnham, Maine, which abutted property owned by the Roods.
- Starting in 1967, Anthony Dombkowski began clearing an overgrown area that he mistakenly believed was on his property but was actually part of the Roods' parcel.
- Over the next several years, Anthony Dombkowski converted the disputed area into a lawn, consistently maintained and mowed it, and used a gravel driveway on it to park trucks.
- In the early 1970s, a wire fence was erected along the line separating the now-maintained lawn from the rest of the Roods' property.
- In 1994, Anthony transferred the property to his brother, Marion J. Dombkowski, who continued to use and maintain the disputed area as his own.
- In 2001, Marion Dombkowski had a well drilled in the middle of the disputed lawn area.
- In 2001, Edgar R. Ferland purchased the Rood property. Sometime thereafter, the fence was moved, blocking Dombkowski's access to the driveway.
- Marion Dombkowski testified that he always believed he was the record titleholder of the disputed area and would have ceased using it if he had known otherwise and been asked to do so by the true owner.
Procedural Posture:
- Marion J. Dombkowski filed a complaint in the Maine Superior Court (Waldo County), a trial court, seeking a declaratory judgment of ownership and an injunction against Edgar R. Ferland.
- The Superior Court issued a preliminary injunction that prevented Ferland from removing or impairing Dombkowski’s well.
- Following a jury-waived trial, the Superior Court entered a judgment in favor of Dombkowski, granting him title by adverse possession and issuing a permanent injunction.
- Edgar R. Ferland (appellant) appealed the Superior Court's judgment to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (this court), with Dombkowski as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does 14 M.R.S. § 810-A eliminate the common law requirement that an adverse possessor's 'claim of right' must be based on a subjective, unconditional intent to claim title, thereby allowing an adverse possession claim based on a mistaken belief of ownership to succeed?
Opinions:
Majority - Dana, J.
Yes. The statute 14 M.R.S. § 810-A eliminates the common law requirement of proving the subjective intent of an adverse possessor when the claim arises from a mistaken belief about a boundary line. The court found that although the statute was 'inartfully' drafted by confusing the terms 'hostile' and 'claim of right,' the legislative history makes the Legislature's intent clear. The Statement of Fact accompanying the bill explicitly states its purpose was to overrule the old 'Maine rule' from cases like Preble v. Me. Cent. R.R. Co., which required a possessor to have an unconditional intent to claim title. By adopting the majority rule, the statute focuses on the objective acts of possession (that they are open, notorious, and continuous) rather than the possessor's subjective state of mind. Therefore, Dombkowski’s mistaken belief and conditional intent are no longer a bar to his adverse possession claim, and prior case law requiring such subjective intent is overruled.
Analysis:
This decision fundamentally alters Maine's adverse possession doctrine by explicitly aligning it with the majority rule in the United States. By confirming that 14 M.R.S. § 810-A eliminates the subjective intent requirement for claims based on mistaken boundaries, the court makes it easier for such claims to succeed. The ruling shifts the legal focus from the possessor's state of mind to their objective actions on the land, providing greater certainty and predictability in property disputes. This holding overrules a long line of Maine precedent and solidifies a more objective standard for future adverse possession cases involving boundary mistakes.
Unlock the full brief for Dombkowski v. Ferland