nC1lCL: ueclslons lssued by Lhe Appeals CourL pursuanL Lo lLs rule 1:28 are

prlmarlly addressed Lo Lhe parLles and, Lherefore, may noL fully address Lhe
facLs of Lhe case or Lhe panel's declslonal raLlonale. Moreover, rule 1:28
declslons are noL clrculaLed Lo Lhe enLlre courL and, Lherefore, represenL
only Lhe vlews of Lhe panel LhaL declded Lhe case. A summary declslon
pursuanL Lo rule 1:28, lssued afLer lebruary 23, 2008, may be clLed for lLs
persuaslve value buL, because of Lhe llmlLaLlons noLed above, noL as
blndlng precedenL.

CCMMCnWLAL1P Cl MASSACPuSL11S ALALS CCu81


SAMuLL WlnlkL8 anoLher [ln1] !"# klM8L8L? 8LLL.

13--1008

$%$&'()*+$ ()* &'*%' -+'.+()/ /& '+0% 1234

AfLer a [ury-walved Lrlal, Lhe plalnLlff properLy owners appeal from a
Superlor CourL [udgmenL agalnsL Lhem on Lhelr clalm of adverse possesslon
of an abuLLlng porLlon of Lhe land of Lhe defendanL, Lhelr nelghbor. We
afflrm.

56789:;<=># 1hls case lnvolves a clalm by Lhe plalnLlffs LhaL Lhey acqulred a
sLrlp of land, runnlng beLween Lhelr properLy and Lhelr abuLLlng nelghbor's
properLy, by adverse possesslon. 1he Lrlal [udge, ln a deLalled declslon afLer
a bench Lrlal lncludlng a vlew, found and ruled LhaL Lhe plalnLlffs falled Lo
prove Lhelr clalm and LhaL Lhe defendanL proved her counLerclalm of
Lrespass. 1he maln argumenL ln Lhe plalnLlffs' appeal ls LhaL aL Lrlal, Lhe
evldence proved LhaL Lhey made acLual adverse use of Lhe sLrlp of land
beLween Lhe Lwo properLles, excluslvely, wlLhouL permlsslon, and openly
and noLorlously, for over LwenLy years. 1hey conLend LhaL Lhe [udge's
flndlngs Lo Lhe conLrary were clearly erroneous. AddlLlonally, Lhe plalnLlffs
argue LhaL lL was error Lo allow !uan CrLega, a predecessor ln LlLle Lo Lhe
defendanL's properLy, Lo LesLlfy aL Lrlal.

*?"7<""?;=# 1he plalnLlffs concede LhaL ln order Lo prevall on a clalm of
adverse possesslon, Lhey bore Lhe burden aL Lrlal of showlng LhaL for
LwenLy years, Lhelr nonpermlsslve use of Lhe land ln dlspuLe was acLual,
open and noLorlous, excluslve, and adverse. See 06@:A=7A !# B;=7;:>C 439
Mass. 416, 421 (2003), quoLlng fromDA=>6EE !# .6E!699?;C 413 Mass. 619,
621-622 (1992). 1he plalnLlffs also recognlze LhaL on appeal, ln order Lo
overLurn Lhe Lrlal [udge's facLual flndlngs LhaL supporLed hls concluslon,
Lhey musL show Lhem Lo be clearly erroneous. 56:F;G6 !# $70A;>C 447
Mass. 468, 469 (2004).

Whlle Lhe plalnLlffs go Lo greaL lengLh ln Lhelr brlef ln reclLlng Lhe evldence
LhaL Lhey feel ls favorable Lo Lhelr poslLlon and supporLs Lhe proposlLlon
LhaL Lhe [udge's flndlngs were clearly erroneous, Lhey lgnore Lhose porLlons
of Lhe evldence LhaL supporL Lhe [udge's flndlngs. 1hls sub[ecL bears llLLle
commenL. 1he [udge heard Lhe case and LhereafLer made deLalled flndlngs
based upon Lhe credlble evldence as he found lL. We have revlewed Lhe
record and flnd no supporL for Lhe argumenL LhaL Lhe [udge's facLual
flndlngs were clearly erroneous. nor was Lhere an error of law ln Lhe
[udge's appllcaLlon of Lhe law of adverse possesslon Lo Lhe facLs he found.

1he plalnLlffs also argue LhaL lL was an abuse of dlscreLlon and reverslble
error Lo allow CrLega Lo LesLlfy beyond Lhe scope of hls asserLlons ln Lhe
dlscovery affldavlL. 1he plalnLlffs characLerlze CrLega's LesLlmony as
'evldence by ambush' and argue LhaL Lhe defendanL should have
supplemenLed Lhe dlscovery ln Lhls regard. We revlew a Lrlal [udge's
dlscovery-relaLed evldenLlary deLermlnaLlons for abuse of dlscreLlon. See
H?E";= !# I;=AJ@AEEC K=7#C 409 Mass. 803, 809 (1991), B;LL;=@A6EMN !#
K""6C 466 Mass. 1, 16-17 (2013).

Agaln, Lhere ls llLLle, lf any, supporL for Lhls argumenL, and lL bears
llLLle dlscusslon. CrLega was llsLed as a wlLness on Lhe preLrlal
memorandum and slgned an affldavlL ouLllnlng hls anLlclpaLed LesLlmony
(whlch was submlLLed by plalnLlffs' counsel as an exhlblL durlng cross-
examlnaLlon). AL Lrlal, plalnLlffs' counsel conceded LhaL CrLega's LesLlmony
dld noL acLually conLradlcL Lhe affldavlL, buL merely wenL 'beyond Lhe scope
of Lhe affldavlL.' AddlLlonally, plalnLlffs' counsel had Lhe opLlon Lo depose
CrLega prlor Lo Lrlal ln order Lo fully explore hls posslble Lrlal LesLlmony, buL
chose noL Lo. We fall Lo see how Lhe plalnLlffs were pre[udlced by CrLega's
LesLlmony, glven Lhe lack of conLradlcLlon and LhaL Lhe plalnLlffs were noL
denled effecLlve cross-examlnaLlon. Slmply puL, Lhe Lrlal [udge dld noL
abuse hls dlscreLlon and Lhls argumenL ls wholly wlLhouL merlL.

We recognlze LhaL border dlspuLes beLween nelghbors are someLlmes
emoLlonally charged, resulLlng ln Lhe full use of Lhe [udlclal process ln
pursulL of clalms of LlLle. Whlle Lhe plalnLlffs' clalms on appeal border on
Lhe frlvolous, we decllne Lo award fees and double cosLs as requesLed by
Lhe defendanL. See, e.g., O6E?6"M:; !# $;:M969A %EA7M:;=?7 'A9?"M:6M?;= .J"#C
K=7#C 467 Mass. 160, 174-173 (2014).

P<>9LA=M 6QQ?:LA>#

8y Lhe CourL (kaLzmann, 8ubln & CarharL, !!.),

LnLered: Aprll 28, 2014.
ln1. lrances Wlnlker.

Lnu Cl uCCuMLn1