Wayne v. Stockbridge

CourtVermont Superior Court
DecidedMay 16, 2014
Docket483
StatusPublished

This text of Wayne v. Stockbridge (Wayne v. Stockbridge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Vermont Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wayne v. Stockbridge, (Vt. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

Wayne v. Town of Stockbridge, No. 483-8-10 Wrcv (Teachout, J., May 16, 2014)

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.] STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION Windsor Unit Docket # 483-8-10 Wrcv

JOHN S. WAYNE, NANCY WAYNE JAFFE REVOCABLE TRUST, and RICHARD T. WAYNE, Plaintiffs

v.

TOWN OF STOCKBRIDGE, Defendant

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER

This matter came before the Court for final hearing on the merits on March 6 and 7, 2014. Post-trial proposed findings of fact and memoranda of law were timely filed. Plaintiffs are represented by Attorney Paul S. Gillies. The Defendant is represented by Attorney John H. Klesch.

In this quiet title action, Plaintiffs seek a declaration concerning a wooded lane that crosses their land, which is a portion of a 1.1 mile stretch that the Town of Stockbridge claims is a town road. For more than 40 years, the Town has considered it to be a town road, whereas the Plaintiffs have considered it to be their private property. Each party acted as if it was their own without knowing that the other believed it was theirs. The difference came to light over an incident in 2007 described below.

Plaintiffs seek a declaration that it is not a town road, and that they are sole owners of the land where the road lies. The Defendant Town claims that the road is a portion of a town road called Town Highway 9, which links two other town roads in the vicinity, Lyon Hill Road and Music Mountain Road. Lyon Hill Road bisects Plaintiffs’ land, and the intersection of the disputed road and Lyon Hill Road is on Plaintiffs’ land.

The Town claims that the entire length of what it calls Town Highway 9 (TH 9), which is 1.1 miles long from Lyon Hill Road to Music Mountain Road, is a town road. However, beyond Plaintiffs’ land along the disputed roadway (between the Plaintiffs’ property and Music Mountain Road), there are two other parcels of land, and those owners were not made parties to the suit and thus have had no opportunity to address the issue. The scope of this case is only that portion of the disputed road that is on Plaintiffs’ land. In this Decision, the entire length of the roadway from Lyon Hill Road to Music Mountain Road will be called “claimed TH 9,” whereas the portion that lies within Plaintiffs’ boundaries will be called simply “the road.” Both parties acknowledge that there are no documents in the Town records showing a formal laying out of a town road along the track of claimed TH 9 pursuant to the statutory method for the establishment of town roads. There is no survey or record of an official act on the part of the Selectboard. The alternative method for creation of a town road is by dedication and acceptance. Both parties acknowledge that there is no evidence of an express act of dedication on the part of Plaintiffs or their predecessors in title, or an express act of acceptance on the part of the Town. The parties agree that the issue in this case is whether claimed TH 9 was created as a town road as a result of dedication and acceptance by implication. This calls upon the Court to consider whether reasonable inferences based on the evidence support both a finding of implied dedication and a finding of implied acceptance. Both parties agree that it is the Town that bears the burden of proof to prove that “the road” is a town road.

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

At the close of the Town’s evidence and again at the close of all evidence, Plaintiffs moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to V.R.C.P. 50 on the grounds that the Town had not presented sufficient evidence of dedication by implication. The Court has reviewed the evidence and denies the motion. The Town presented expert testimony of land surveyor Richard Lunna that in his expert opinion, based on a provision in a deed from 1810, lack of other access roads in the vicinity to land parcels, evidence of use over the years, the existence of stone walls along both sides of the first several hundred feet, missing documentation in the land records regarding other town roads, and other factors, the cumulative evidence supports the conclusion that the road in question was dedicated as a town road as of 1810 and accepted by the Town. While the undersigned as finders of fact are not obligated to accept the opinion, it is sufficient to meet the Town’s burden to present evidence in support of its claim that the road crossing Plaintiffs’ land is a town road. The Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law is denied.

Findings of Fact

Based on the facts and for the reasons set forth below, the undersigned find that the Town has not met its burden to prove dedication for public use, even by implication, of “the road” as it crosses Plaintiffs’ land.

The Plaintiffs own several hundred acres of land in the northerly part of the Town of Stockbridge, which is remote from the center of town and sparsely populated. Their grandfather1 bought a 200 acre parcel in 1945 and transferred ownership to his children, the Plaintiffs’ father and aunt, in 1946 but used the property himself until his death in the 1970s. The aunt transferred her share to their father, who transferred the property to his children, the Plaintiffs. Additional acreage was later added. As noted above, Lyon Hill Road, a town road, runs through the primary parcel and provides access to the dwelling on the property. Lyon Hill Road is a Class III road that is not regularly maintained year-round, but is plowed by the Town during the winter as

1 Nancy Wayne Jaffee appears to be the principal party of interest in the Nancy Wayne Jaffe Revocable Trust. For simplicity, “Plaintiffs” in this Decision includes both Nancy Wayne Jaffee and the Nancy Wayne Jaffe Revocable Trust as well as the other two individuals.

2 necessary for use by the Wayne family for access to the house. Since 1945, members of the Wayne family have used the property on a continuous part-time basis. A Stockbridge resident, Robert Dorman, has been employed as caretaker of the property continuously since 1955.

“The road” as it crosses Plaintiffs’ land is now a wooded lane approximately 12-15 feet wide. It consists of two tracks with a grassy strip down the middle and is surrounded by woods on both sides. At the southern end, beginning at the intersection with Lyon Hill Road, there are stone walls on both sides for approximately 300-400 feet. The stone wall on the easterly side continues all the way through Plaintiffs’ land to the property line to the abutter to the north. A part of the road on Plaintiffs’ land is somewhat steep and rocky and water washes down it. Surveyor Lunna called that portion a “dugout.” The land is wet in and near “the road” and the Plaintiffs’ spring is located very close to it and has been throughout the Wayne family ownership.

The Town of Stockbridge was chartered in 1761, and its proprietors began to organize the town in the mid-1780s. Joel Doolittle acquired all of Rights 4 and 5 (within which claimed TH 9 lies) and began to convey property in 1793. The first road in this portion of the town was Music Mountain Road, which was laid out in 1790 and lies some distance to the north of the Wayne land. Parcels in the vicinity of Music Mountain Road were first conveyed in 1793 and 1795 but without mention of a road. In 1808, James Whitcomb conveyed a parcel of 50 acres in the vicinity of “the road” to Paul Whitcomb, but with no mention of any road or road access.

In 1810, Jotham Chamberlain conveyed a parcel of 9 acres to Paul Whitcomb. This 9- acre piece is a portion of lands now owned by Plaintiffs and over which a portion of “the road” presently runs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Druke v. Town of Newfane
409 A.2d 994 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1979)
Bacon v. Boston & Maine Railroad
76 A. 128 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1910)
McAdams v. Town of Barnard
2007 VT 61 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wayne v. Stockbridge, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wayne-v-stockbridge-vtsuperct-2014.