Bella Properties v. Commercial Place

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: March 10, 2006
• Docket: CUMre-05-122
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION CUMBERLAND, SS. DOCKET NO: RE-05-122

@TA= 0 C MIWE (A: f,'!\.i A q! J . Cerrnbedwndi sgi (lJer!ts Offlee SUPERIOR COURT BELLA PROPERTIES, LLC, MAR 102006 * Plaintiff RECEIVEDoRDER * COMMERCIAL PLACE, LLC and THE GNECCO GROUP, INC., * * Defendants *

This case comes before the Court on Defendant The Gnecco Group's

Motion to Dismiss all claims brought against it by Plaintiff Bella Properties.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

T h s action arises out of a dispute regarding the eastern boundary line

between Lot 4 and Lot 5 in the Enterprise Business Park in Scarborough, Maine.

On April 26, 2002, Kerry D. Anderson, David R. Mzley and Ann M. Leighton

originally conveyed Lot 4 to Enterprise Business Park ("EBP"). (Complaint 9 8).

The EBP deed references a July 12, 2001 amended subdivision plan, whtch

describes and identifies the length of the eastern boundary line of Lot 4 as being

421.68 feet. The deed was recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds

on August 3, 2001. On December 17, 2001, the July 12, 2001 amended

subdivision plan was revised to reflect a decrease in the eastern boundary line of

Lot 4 to 406.8 feet. (Complaint ¶ 9). On October 6, 2003, EBP conveyed Lot 4 to

Gnecco. (Complaint qj 11). The Gnecco deed describes and identifies Lot 4 by referring to the July 12, 2001 amended subdivision plan. The deed was

subsequently recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds. On Apnl

29,2004, Commercial Place, LLC conveyed all of Lot 5 in the Enterprise Business

Park to Bella Properties ("Bella"). The Bella deed describes and identifies Lot 5 by

reference to a January 2004 amended subdivision plan, w h c h refers to the

December 17, 2001 plan to describe the length of the boundary line.

Bella filed h s action seehng a declaration that the April 26, 2002 deed to

EBP and the October 6, 2003 deed to Gnecco contain a material mistake by

referring to the wrong subdivision plan. Ultimately, Bella seeks a declaratory

judgment of the true boundary line between Lot 4 and Lot 5.

DISCUSSION

Bella argues that the EBP and Gnecco deeds contain material mistakes

regarding the length of the eastern boundary line of Lot 4. Bella asserts that the

parties mistakenly referred to an older subdivision plan to describe the length of

the eastern boundary line rather than the most recently revised subdivision plan

of December 17, 2001. T h s mistake, Bella asserts, resulted in the EBP deed

conveying 14.98 feet of Lot 5 land to EBP. Bella seeks a declaration that the true

length of the eastern boundary line of Lot 4 is 406.68 feet as described in the

December 17, 2001 revised subdivision plan. In response, Gnecco asserts that at

the time Commercial Place conveyed Lot 5 to Bella, it no longer owned the 14.98

disputed feet along the boundary line. As such, Gnecco argues, "a grantor

cannot convey to a second grantee what had already been conveyed to a prior

grantee." Rusha v. Little, 309 A.2d 867, 870 (Me. 1973). Furthermore, Gnecco

argues that Bella lacks standing to reform Gnecco's deed.

In cases involving boundary line disputes, suits properly may be commenced as either quiet title, 14 h4.R.S.A. 6651-6661 (2003), or declaratory

judgment claims, 14 M.R.S.A. 55 5951-5963 (2003). Id.' The determination of the

court as to the location of the boundary is a question of fact. Dowley v.Mo~ency,

'1999 iviE 137, i i , 737 A.2d i061, i066. In a motion to dismiss, the Court

reviews the material allegations of the complaint in a light most favorable to the

party asserting the claim to determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of

action or alleges facts that would entitle that party to relief pursuant to some

legal theory. N m Orleans Tanker Corp., v. Dep't of Transp., 1999 ME 67, 71 3, 728

In t h s declaratory judgment action, Bella is essentially askng t h s Court

to reform a mistake in the EPB and Gnecco deeds by declaring that the length of

the eastern boundary line between Lot 4 and Lot 5 is 406.8 feet as described in

the December 17, 1002 revised subdivision plan. In order for a party to have

standing to bring an action seelung to reform a deed, a party must have been a

party or privy to the original deed and must show that the mistake re as mutual

as between the original parties to the deed.' Longley v. Knapp, 1998 ME 142, ¶18,

713 A.2d 939, 944. The privity requirement "will abate only in the face of a

subsequent purchaser having notice of the defect." Id.

Here, Bella was not a party to the transactions between Kerry D.

Anderson, David R. hliley and Ann M. Leighton and EBP; or EBP and Gnecco.

1 The Law Court has stated that a declaratory judgment action is a suitable form of action for determining rights in real property. See Harkilzs u.Ftlller, 652 A.2d 90,92 (Me. 1995); Hodgdon u.Campbell, 411 A.2d 667, 669 (Me. 1980). Reformation of an agreement is appropriate when there was a mutual mistake, one that is "reciprocal and common to both parties, where each alike labors under the misconception in respect to the terms of the written instrument." YclJfie u.Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., 1998 ME 77, q[ 8, 710 A.2d 886, 888. The mistake must also be material to the transaction. Id. The 1uartv seeluno i " reformation must prove the existence of mutual mistake by clear and convincing evidence. Id. f-Iowever, even if Bella was a party or was privy to those transactions, it has not

demonstrated that Kerry D. Aiiderson, David R. hGley, Ann hl. Leighton, and

EBP did not intend to refer to the July 12, 2001 subdivision plan in their deed; or

that EBP and Gneccc did nct intend to refer to th.e $ 1 ~ 7 12, 2001 sl-1bdi~7isinnplan

in their deed. Absent evidence of a mutual mistake, the Court may not declare

that the boundary line is other than what the parties agreed to as evidenced by

their deeds.

The entry is:

Defendant The Gnecco Group's Motion to Dismiss all claims brought against it by Bella Properties is GRANTED.

Justice, kuperior Court I F COURT'S 'land County Box 287 3ine 041 12-0287

GEORGE L I N G E ESQ PO BOX 7 3 2 0 1 PORTLAND ME 0 4 1 1 2

\ M E L I S S A HEWEY E S Q PO BOX 9781 PORTLAND ME 04104

BRENDAN R I E L L Y E S Q PO BOX 4510 PORTLAND ME 0 4 1 1 2