STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION KENNEBEC, ss. DOCKET NO. RE-08-01 1.
KNAUER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
Plaintiff
v. DECISION
MATHEW DELISLE,
Defendant
Before the court is the plaintiff's complaint alleging trespass (count I) and
declaratory judgment (count II). The defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim
asking for declaratory judgment (count I- boundary by acquiescence) and declaratory
judgment (count II- boundary by estoppel).
A nonjury trial was held in Superior Court on September 3, 2008.
The plaintiff is the owner of a lot with buildings thereon located on Great Pond,
Rome, Maine. The plaintiff's lot is identified as lot 7 on the subdivision recorded as the
Crane Subdivision. George Knauer, Jr. obtained lot 7 from Paris Mosher in 1961
(Warranty Deed, Book 1231, Page 278).
The defendant's father purchased lots 4, 5 and 6 of said Crane Subdivision in
1964. In 1999, the defendant's father conveyed lot 6 to him. (Warranty Deed, Book
6043, Page 240). Between 1996 and 1999, the defendant constructed a summer camp on
said property. He did give notice to George Knauer that he would build a summer
cabin. The defendant never had a survey done and relied upon an anchor bolt in the
southeast corner of the lot and an iron pipe located on the shoreline of Great Pond in 2
determining where the boundary line was located. The defendant cut some trees and
built his cabin using the line between the anchor bolt and the iron pin on the lake as the
boundary line. George Knauer's son, Ed, observed the construction and discussed the
matter with his father. The elder Knauer indicated to his son that he had talked with
the defendant and was assured by the defendant that everything was in order. Neither
George Knauer nor his son Ed Knauer were exactly aware of where the boundary line
was. Ed Knauer indicated that he never noticed the anchor bolt but did notice the
construction that was being done and the trees that were cleared along the boundary
line that the defendant considered the boundary line.
The defendant indicated that he had a conversation with George Knauer who
indicated to him in the summer of 2000 that the defendant was doing a great job.
In 2002, the defendant put a foundation under his residence and made it year
round. In 2002, he added an attached garage to the residence. Lots 6 and 7 are heavily
wooded and there is a distance of 200 feet between the plaintiff and defendant's
residences.
In 2006, a survey was conducted on the Delisle property, and said survey was for
the purpose other than determining the boundary line between defendant's lot 6 and
defendant's lot 7. As a result of that survey, the defendant was informed that his house
may have been built over the Knauer's boundary line. The defendant informed the
plaintiff of the boundary line problem. As· a result of that problem, the plaintiff
brought suit against the defendant.
Robert Knowlton, a surveyor, conducted a survey. (Plaintiff's Ex. 1). His survey
relied upon the Crane Subdivision plan (Plaintiff's Ex. 2). The original plan called for
six uniform lots of 100 by 200 feet. Lot 7 was a remainder lot containing approximately
300 feet on the eastern back and 340 on the shoreline. Knowlton's survey found that the 3
defendanfs house was built right on the boundary line with approximately 80% of his
house on Knauer's property. The survey also disclosed that the plaintiff had 154 feet
extra on his eastern boundary than that set out in the deed that he received; the survey
showed that he had 454 feet on his eastern back line instead of the 300 feet set out in the
original subdivision plan and his deed.
On the shoreline, Knowlton's survey demonstrated that the plaintiff had 406 feet
on the shoreline, 66 more feet than was set out on his deed and on the original Crane
Survey.
Robert Yarumian conducted a survey for the defendant. He did not agree with
the Knowlton survey due to discrepancies he found in the location and angles of the
line. However, he did find that the boundary line still went through the defendanfs
house but at a different angle.
Discussion
Both parties have asked for declaratory judgment setting the proper boundary
line between the parties. The defendant has asked this court to find that the boundary
lines he relied upon are the true boundary lines relying on the concepts of either
boundary by acquiescence or boundary by estoppel.
After considering the evidence, this court finds that the survey conducted by
Robert Knowlton and which is contained in plaintiff's exhibit 1 represents an accurate
indication of the true boundary lines between lots 6 and 7. His explanation of the
relationship between the original Crane Subdivision, the original Crane Survey, and the
present configuration of the lots makes complete sense. His opinion is well
documented and is based upon prior deeds, prior surveys, and his examination of the
land in question. 4
The court finds that his survey establishes the true boundary line between the
defendant's property lot 6 and the plaintiff's property lot 7.
Boundary by Acquiescence
Notwithstanding the boundary line as established by this survey as the true
boundary line, the court must next address whether the concept of boundary by
acquiescence demands a boundary line other than the line established by the survey.
To establish a boundary by acquiescence the moving party must prove four things:
(1) possession up to a visible line marked clearly by monuments, fences, or
the like;
(2) actual or constructive notice to the adjoining landowner of the possession;
(3) conduct by the adjoining landowner from which recognition and·
acquiescence not induced by fraud or mistake may be fairly inferred; and
(4) acquiescence for a long period of years such that the policy behind the
doctrine is well served by recognizing the boundary.
Calthorpe v. Abrahamson, 441 A.2d 284 (Me. 1982).
The court finds and concludes that element 1 has been proven. The boundary
line used by the defendant was a clear line from an anchor bolt to an iron pin on the
shoreline. Further, the defendant cleared some trees up to said line so to an observer it
was a visible line marked by monuments.
The court also finds that element 2 has been proved. The plaintiff did have
actual notice of the boundary line that the defendant was relying upon. Ed Knauer, son
of the owner of the property at the time of this construction, indicated that he
questioned the location of the construction and the boundary line. He testified that he
discussed this was his father and that his father responded that he knew that the 5
boundary line was okay because he had talked to the defendant and was sure
everything was okay. This shows that they did have notice of the boundary line.
The third element raises some serious question as to whether George Knauer was
induced by mistake. The court finds that there was no fraud in that the defendant was
acting in good faith and did believe that the boundary line ran between the anchor bolt
and the iron pin on the shoreline. Whether he was negligent in not securing a survey
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION KENNEBEC, ss. DOCKET NO. RE-08-01 1.
KNAUER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
Plaintiff
v. DECISION
MATHEW DELISLE,
Defendant
Before the court is the plaintiff's complaint alleging trespass (count I) and
declaratory judgment (count II). The defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim
asking for declaratory judgment (count I- boundary by acquiescence) and declaratory
judgment (count II- boundary by estoppel).
A nonjury trial was held in Superior Court on September 3, 2008.
The plaintiff is the owner of a lot with buildings thereon located on Great Pond,
Rome, Maine. The plaintiff's lot is identified as lot 7 on the subdivision recorded as the
Crane Subdivision. George Knauer, Jr. obtained lot 7 from Paris Mosher in 1961
(Warranty Deed, Book 1231, Page 278).
The defendant's father purchased lots 4, 5 and 6 of said Crane Subdivision in
1964. In 1999, the defendant's father conveyed lot 6 to him. (Warranty Deed, Book
6043, Page 240). Between 1996 and 1999, the defendant constructed a summer camp on
said property. He did give notice to George Knauer that he would build a summer
cabin. The defendant never had a survey done and relied upon an anchor bolt in the
southeast corner of the lot and an iron pipe located on the shoreline of Great Pond in 2
determining where the boundary line was located. The defendant cut some trees and
built his cabin using the line between the anchor bolt and the iron pin on the lake as the
boundary line. George Knauer's son, Ed, observed the construction and discussed the
matter with his father. The elder Knauer indicated to his son that he had talked with
the defendant and was assured by the defendant that everything was in order. Neither
George Knauer nor his son Ed Knauer were exactly aware of where the boundary line
was. Ed Knauer indicated that he never noticed the anchor bolt but did notice the
construction that was being done and the trees that were cleared along the boundary
line that the defendant considered the boundary line.
The defendant indicated that he had a conversation with George Knauer who
indicated to him in the summer of 2000 that the defendant was doing a great job.
In 2002, the defendant put a foundation under his residence and made it year
round. In 2002, he added an attached garage to the residence. Lots 6 and 7 are heavily
wooded and there is a distance of 200 feet between the plaintiff and defendant's
residences.
In 2006, a survey was conducted on the Delisle property, and said survey was for
the purpose other than determining the boundary line between defendant's lot 6 and
defendant's lot 7. As a result of that survey, the defendant was informed that his house
may have been built over the Knauer's boundary line. The defendant informed the
plaintiff of the boundary line problem. As· a result of that problem, the plaintiff
brought suit against the defendant.
Robert Knowlton, a surveyor, conducted a survey. (Plaintiff's Ex. 1). His survey
relied upon the Crane Subdivision plan (Plaintiff's Ex. 2). The original plan called for
six uniform lots of 100 by 200 feet. Lot 7 was a remainder lot containing approximately
300 feet on the eastern back and 340 on the shoreline. Knowlton's survey found that the 3
defendanfs house was built right on the boundary line with approximately 80% of his
house on Knauer's property. The survey also disclosed that the plaintiff had 154 feet
extra on his eastern boundary than that set out in the deed that he received; the survey
showed that he had 454 feet on his eastern back line instead of the 300 feet set out in the
original subdivision plan and his deed.
On the shoreline, Knowlton's survey demonstrated that the plaintiff had 406 feet
on the shoreline, 66 more feet than was set out on his deed and on the original Crane
Survey.
Robert Yarumian conducted a survey for the defendant. He did not agree with
the Knowlton survey due to discrepancies he found in the location and angles of the
line. However, he did find that the boundary line still went through the defendanfs
house but at a different angle.
Discussion
Both parties have asked for declaratory judgment setting the proper boundary
line between the parties. The defendant has asked this court to find that the boundary
lines he relied upon are the true boundary lines relying on the concepts of either
boundary by acquiescence or boundary by estoppel.
After considering the evidence, this court finds that the survey conducted by
Robert Knowlton and which is contained in plaintiff's exhibit 1 represents an accurate
indication of the true boundary lines between lots 6 and 7. His explanation of the
relationship between the original Crane Subdivision, the original Crane Survey, and the
present configuration of the lots makes complete sense. His opinion is well
documented and is based upon prior deeds, prior surveys, and his examination of the
land in question. 4
The court finds that his survey establishes the true boundary line between the
defendant's property lot 6 and the plaintiff's property lot 7.
Boundary by Acquiescence
Notwithstanding the boundary line as established by this survey as the true
boundary line, the court must next address whether the concept of boundary by
acquiescence demands a boundary line other than the line established by the survey.
To establish a boundary by acquiescence the moving party must prove four things:
(1) possession up to a visible line marked clearly by monuments, fences, or
the like;
(2) actual or constructive notice to the adjoining landowner of the possession;
(3) conduct by the adjoining landowner from which recognition and·
acquiescence not induced by fraud or mistake may be fairly inferred; and
(4) acquiescence for a long period of years such that the policy behind the
doctrine is well served by recognizing the boundary.
Calthorpe v. Abrahamson, 441 A.2d 284 (Me. 1982).
The court finds and concludes that element 1 has been proven. The boundary
line used by the defendant was a clear line from an anchor bolt to an iron pin on the
shoreline. Further, the defendant cleared some trees up to said line so to an observer it
was a visible line marked by monuments.
The court also finds that element 2 has been proved. The plaintiff did have
actual notice of the boundary line that the defendant was relying upon. Ed Knauer, son
of the owner of the property at the time of this construction, indicated that he
questioned the location of the construction and the boundary line. He testified that he
discussed this was his father and that his father responded that he knew that the 5
boundary line was okay because he had talked to the defendant and was sure
everything was okay. This shows that they did have notice of the boundary line.
The third element raises some serious question as to whether George Knauer was
induced by mistake. The court finds that there was no fraud in that the defendant was
acting in good faith and did believe that the boundary line ran between the anchor bolt
and the iron pin on the shoreline. Whether he was negligent in not securing a survey
before building his house is not an issue in this matter. However, the court does find
that not only was the defendant operating pursuant to a mistake but he induced the
adjoining landowner, George Knauer, by this mistaken belief of the location of the
boundary line. Both parties were operating pursuant to a mistaken belief as to the true
boundary line.
This third element has not been proven because George Knauer was induced by
a mistake to acquiescence to the boundary.
Element 4 is proven because of the number of years coupled with the
construction involved. The policy behind the doctrine of acquiescence is well served in
this case because of the silence on behalf of the adjoining landowner while the
construction was being done. This 4th element is akin to the concept of estoppel which
is discussed in the next section. Although there are not many years involved, there was
a great deal of effort and expense involved without any objection by the plaintiff.
Since the court finds that this was all induced by a mistake, the court finds that
the defendant has failed to prove a boundary by acquiescence.
Boundary by Estoppel
The court does not find that the defendant has proven boundary by estoppel.
Maine cases make it very clear that estoppel should be "carefully and sparingly
applied." Milliken v. Bushwell, 313 A.2d 111, 119 (Me. 1973). 6
The defendant argues that estoppel is established because the plaintiff remains
silent while the defendant expended resources and effort building a year-round
residence. There is no question that the plaintiff's predecessor George Knauer did
remain silent as the defendant built his seasonal camp, converted it to a year-round
residence, and then added a garage. However, G~orge Knauer did inquire as to the
construction that was going on and the defendant assured him that everything was all
right. George Knauer and the defendant relied upon this mistake and George Knauer
took no further steps to investigate the boundary line. It is hard to say that George
Knauer was negligent in not doing his own investigation when the defendant was also
negligent in building his residence without a survey. The defendant has failed to prove
boundary by estoppel.
Laches
For the same reason stated above, the court finds that the defendant has failed to
prove laches on the part of the defendant in bringing this action. For the very same
reason that no objection was made at the time, George Knauer was induced by the
defendant's assurance that everything was okay.
Remedies
The plaintiff is asking for a mandatory injunction ordering the defendant to
move his residence on to his own property as shown on Knowlton Survey, exhibit 1.
The leading Maine case, Gaffney v. Reid, 628 A.2d 155 (Me. 1993) gives this court the
principles to apply in this case.
This court finds that the defendant did encroach upon the plaintiff's property;
therefore, his infringement constituted an irreparable injury. Gaffney v. Reid, 628 A.2d at
157.
The Gaffney court went on to say that notwithstanding the irreparable injury: 7
A court acting in equity may refuse to grant a mandatory injunction when the effect of the encroachment is negligible compared to the cost of correcting it.
Gaffney v. Reid, 628 A.2d at 157-158.
Based on the defendant's testimony, the court finds that the cost of moving his
residence would exceed $100,000. The court finds that this cost when compared to the
effect of the encroachment upon the plaintiff's property is negligible. The court finds
and concludes that the effect on the encroachment is negligible for the following
reasons:
First, the 200-foot distance between the defendant and the plaintiff's residences is
heavily wooded and the location of the defendant's residence no way interferes with
the plaintiff's use of their property. The Knauers lived comfortably for eight years
without any objection or problems and probably would have never known about the
boundary problem if the defendant had not brought it to their attention.
Secondly, by looking at the photographs, it is easy to see that the defendant's
cabin can barely be seen through the woods. Moving the defendant's residence 50 to
100 feet in a northerly direction would not make a significant difference to the plaintiff's
use and enjoyment of their property.
Third, the plaintiff has plenty of room to expand his premises without having to
expand in the direction of the defendant's residence. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff's
survey and discovery of the boundary problem led to the plaintiff realizing that he had
more land than he thought that he purchased the property. The Knowlton survey
expanded the plaintiff's total property by a significant amount. The plaintiff's back line
increased from 300 feet to 455 feet and the shoreline expanded from 340 feet to 470 feet.
Although their understanding of the parameters of their property didn't change, the 8
amount of land was much greater than the amount set out in the deed they received
when George Knauer purchased the property.
For the reasons stated above, the defendant's property being over the line by
approximately 40 feet is negligible when compared to the cost of moving the
defendant's residence.
Even though this court ruled that a mandatory injunction is not the proper
remedy in this case, some damage is presumed to flow from a legal injury to a real
property right. Gaffney v. Reid, 628 A.2d at 158.
The only value testified to was Ed Knauer's opinion that the strip of real estate
between the boundary line established by the Knowlton survey and the defendant's
mistaken boundary line was worth $40,000. This entire strip of land is approximately
200 feet(northern line) by 77 feet(eastern line) by 220 feet(southern line) and 33.78 feet
along the shore. Although the defendant is claiming all of this strip of land by way of
boundary by acquiescence or estoppel, the court has denied this request. The
encroachment in question consists of the eastern half of this strip. The eastern half of
the strip consists of the house and the driveway, and encompasses approximately one
half of the total strip.
The court hereby determines that the proper award in this case is one-half of the
value of the total strip of land, which is $20,000.
Conclusion
It is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff's count II (declaratory judgment) is
GRANTED in that the plaintiff owns the property labeled as the Knauer parcel,
consisting of 2.07 plus or minus acres on the boundary survey completed by Robert
Knowlton. Said survey is hereby incorporated by reference and made a part hereof. 9
Furthermore, it is further ORDERED that the plaintiff's request for a mandatory
injunction is DENIED. However, the plaintiff is awarded damages in the amount of
$20,000 with interest and costs. Judgment to be entered in plaintiff"s favor on count I of
the plaintiff's complaint in the amount of $20,000.
Furthermore, the defendant's counterclaim for declaratory judgment (count 1
boundary by acquiescence) and declaratory judgment (count II- boundary by estoppel)
are hereby DENIED. Judgment shall be entered in favor of the plaintiff on both counts
of the defendant's counterclaim.
Dated: September 29, 2008
Justice, Superior Court
Attorney for plaintiff
Alton Stevens
44 Elm Street
Waterville, ME
Defendant appeared pro se KNkDER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, ss. Attorney for: KNAUER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Docket No AUGSC-RE-2008-00001 ALTON STEVENS - RETAINED 01/03/200B MARDEN DUBORD ET AL 44 ELM STREET DOCKET RECORD PO BOX 708 WATERVILLE ME 04901-0708
vs MATTHEW DELISLE - DEFENDANT 17 DELISLE LANE ROME ME 04963 Attorney for: MATTHEW DELISLE JOHN BANNON - WITHDRAWN 08/25/2008 MURRAY PLUMB & MURRAY 75 PEARL STREET PO BOX 9785 PORTLAND ME 04104-5085
Filing Document: COMPLAINT Minor Case Type: TRESPASS Filing Date: 01/03/2008
Docket Events: 01/03/2008 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON 01/03/2008
01/03/2008 Party(s): KNAUER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 01/03/2008 Plaintiff's Attorney: ALTON STEVENS
01/03/2008 CERTIFY/NOTIFICATION - CASE FILE NOTICE SENT ON 01/03/2008 Plaintiff's Attorney: ALTON STEVENS MAILED TO ATTY. OF RECORD.
01/03/2008 Party(s): MATTHEW DELISLE SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS SERVED ON 12/15/2007 ORIGINAL SUMMONS WITH RETURN SERVICE MADE UPON MATTHEW DELISLE
01/03/2008 Party(s): MATTHEW DELISLE RESPONSIVE PLEADING - ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FILED ON 12/26/2007 Defendant's Attorney: JOHN BANNON
01/03/2008 Party(s): MATTHEW DELISLE ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 12/26/2007 Defendant's Attorney: JOHN BANNON
01/03/2008 DISCOVERY FILING - DISCOVERY DEADLINE ENTERED ON 09/03/2008
ASSIGNMENT - SINGLE JUDGE/JUSTICE ASSIGNED TO JUSTICE ON 01/03/2008 JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
01/03/2008 ORDER - SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED ON 01/03/2008 LISA LA MOTHE , TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ASSISTANT ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO page 1 of 4 Printed on: 09/29/2008 AUGSC-RE-2008-00001 DOCKET RECORD
PARTIES/COUNSEL
01/03/2008 Party(s): KNAUER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,MATTHEW DELISLE RESPONSIVE PLEADING - RESPONSE FILED ON 01/03/2008 Plaintiff's Attorney: ALTON STEVENS REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM.
01/04/2008 Party(s): KNAUER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 01/03/2008 Plaintiff's Attorney: ALTON STEVENS PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT SERVED ON JOHN C BANNON, ESQ. ON 1/2/08
04/11/2008 Party(s): KNAUER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 04/04/2008 Plaintiff's Attorney: ALTON STEVENS TO EXTEND DEADLINES TO DESIGNATE EXPERTS WITH PROPOSED ORDER.
04/16/2008 Party(s): KNAUER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ADR - NOTICE OF ADR PROCESS/NEUTRAL FILED ON 04/07/2008 MEDIATION IWTH MATTHEW DYER, DATE AND TIME ARE BEING NEGOTIATED.
04/16/2008 party(s): KNAUER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ADR - NOTICE OF ADR PROCESS/NEUTRAL FILED ON 04/09/2008 Plaintiff's Attorney: ALTON STEVENS MEDIATION WITH MATTHEW DYER ON MAY 2, 2008 AT 9:30 AM AT ONE WESTON COURT, AUGUSTA, MAINE
04/22/2008 Party(s): KNAUER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 04/17/2008 JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE DEADLINE BY WHICH PLAINTIFF MUST DESIGNTE ITS EXPERTS IS EXTENDED TO JUNE 3, 2008, AND THE DEADLINE BY WHICH DEFENDANT MYST DESIGNATE HIS EXPERT IS EXTENDED TO AUGUST 3, 2008.
05/14/2008 ORDER - REPORT OF ADR CONF/ORDER FILED ON 05/07/2008 JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
05/14/2008 ORDER - REPORT OF ADR CONF/ORDER UNRESOLVED ON 05/07/2008
OS/20/2008 ORDER - REPORT OF ADR CONF/ORDER ENTERED ON 05/13/2008 JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE "REPORT OF ADR CONFERENCE FILED. CASE IS UNRESOLVED. ORDER/JUDGMENT ENTEREDCOPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
08/01/2008 HEARING - TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 08/06/2008 @ 1:00 JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
08/01/2008 Party(s): MATTHEW DELISLE MOTION - MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CNSL FILED WITH AFFIDAVIT ON 07/28/2008 Defendant's Attorney: JOHN BANNON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT, PROPOSED ORDER, AFFIDAVIT OF DEFT page 2 of 4 Printed on: 09/29/2008 AUGSC-RE-2008-00001 DOCKET RECORD
08/05/2008 Party(s): KNAUER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 08/01/2008 Plaintiff's Attorney: ALTON STEVENS PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE TO DEPOSE ROBERT A YARUMIAN, II, PLS SERVED ON MATTHEW DELISLE ON 7/30/08.
08/07/2008 HEARING - TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE HELD ON 08/06/2008
08/07/2008 ORDER - PRETRIAL/STATUS ENTERED ON 08/06/2008 JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE "CONFERENCE ORDER FILED: CASE SET FOR TRIAL ON 9/4/08 AT 8:30 A.M. COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
08/07/2008 TRIAL - BENCH SCHEDULED FOR 09/04/2008 @ 9:00 in Room No. 2
08/07/2008 TRIAL - BENCH NOTICE SENT ON 08/27/2008
08/19/2008 Party(s): MATTHEW DELISLE OTHER FILING - DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESS FILED ON 07/31/2008 Defendant's Attorney: JOHN BANNON
08/27/2008 Party(s): MATTHEW DELISLE MOTION - MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CNSL GRANTED ON 08/25/2008 JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
08/27/2008 Party(s): MATTHEW DELISLE ATTORNEY - WITHDRAWN ORDERED ON 08/25/2008 Defendant's Attorney: JOHN BANNON
09/02/2008 Party(s): KNAUER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OTHER FILING - WITNESS & EXHIBIT LIST FILED ON 08/29/2008 Plaintiff's Attorney: ALTON STEVENS
09/02/2008 Party(s): MATTHEW DELISLE OTHER FILING - DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESS FILED ON 08/29/2008 S/MATTHEW DELISLE
09/02/2008 Party(s): MATTHEW DELISLE OTHER FILING - TRIAL BRIEF FILED ON 08/29/2008 S/MATTHEW DELISLE
09/04/2008 TRIAL - BENCH HELD ON 09/04/2008 JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE Plaintiff's Attorney: ALTON STEVENS MATTHEW DELISLE, PRO SE OPENING REMARKS MADE TO THE COURT. TAPE 1017,1018,1051. COURT TO TAKE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT.
09/16/2008 party(s): KNAUER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OTHER FILING - TRIAL BRIEF FILED ON 09/16/2008 Plaintiff's Attorney: ALTON STEVENS IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S TRIAL BRIEF. Page 3 of 4 Printed on: 09/29/2008 AUGSC-RE-200B-0000I DOCKET RECORD
09/18/2008 Party(s): MATTHEW DELISLE OTHER FILING - TRIAL BRIEF FILED ON 09/18/2008 S/MATTHEW DELISLE, PRO SE
09/29/2008 FINDING - JUDGMENT DETERMINATION ENTERED ON 09/29/200B JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
09/29/2008 ORDER - COURT JUDGMENT ENTERED ON 09/29/200B JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL Judgment entered for KNAUER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and against MATTHEW DELISLE in the amount of $20000.00. Judgment entered on COUNT 1 for KNAUER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and against MATTHEW DELISLE. Judgment entered on COUNT 1 for KNAUER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and against MATTHEW DELISLE.
09/29/2008 FINDING - FINAL JUDGMENT CASE CLOSED ON 09/29/2008
09/29/2008 ORDER - COURT JUDGMENT COPY TO REPOSITORIES ON 09/29/200B
A TRUE COPY ATTEST: Clerk
Page 4 of 4 Printed on: 09/29/2008