Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Golding v. Chipman

Superior Court of Maine, Cumberland

March 19, 2019

JEANNE F. GOLDING, Plaintiff
v.
MATTHEW L. CHIPMAN, as Parent and Next Friend of SAMUEL B. CHIPMAN, and MATTHEW J. CHIPMAN, Defendants

          Plaintiff-David Sherman, Esq.

          Defendants-Elliott Teel, Esq.

          ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          Nancy Mills, Justice

         Before the court is plaintiff Jeanne Golding's motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion is granted on count I of plaintiff's amended complaint.[1]

         I. Facts

         Plaintiff Jeanne Gotding is a resident of North Yarmouth, Maine and owns real property in North Yarmouth and Pownal, Maine. (Supp.'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 1-2.) Defendants Matthew J. Chipman and Samuel Chipman own property in Pownal, Maine that abuts plaintiff's property. (Supp.'g S.MF.¶5 3-4.) Plaintiff and defendants dispute the boundary between their properties and the ownership of 15 acres of land. (Supp.'g S.M.F. ¶¶¶ 8-9.)

         Wayne Wood, a licensed land surveyor, prepared a survey of plaintiff and defendants' properties. (Supp.'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 5-6.) Mr. Wood reviewed the deeds for both plaintiff and defendants' properties, related subdivision plans, and visited the site in person. (Supp.'g S.M.F. ¶ 7.) Mr. Wood determined that the boundary line between plaintiff and defendants' properties was located south of the disputed 15 acres and that plaintiff owned the disputed land. (Supp.'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 10-12.)

         Plaintiff has designated Mr. Wood as her expert witness to testify as to the boundary location. (Supp.'g S.M.F. ¶ 13.) Defendants have not designated an expert to testify as to the boundary location. (Supp.'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 15-16.) The discovery deadline was September 7, 2018.

         II. Procedure

         In her amended complaint filed against defendants on June 1, 2018, plaintiff alleges two causes of action: count I, declaratory judgment and count II, injunctive relief. Defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint on July 10, 2018. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on December 26, 2018. Defendants filed an opposition on January 14, 2019. Plaintiff filed a reply on February 27, 2019.

         III. Discussion

         A. Standard of Review

         Summary judgment is granted to a moving party where "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact" and the moving party "is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." M.R. Civ. P. 56(c). "A material fact is one that can affect the outcome of the case, and there is a genuine issue when there is sufficient evidence for a fact-finder to choose between competing versions of the fact." Lougee Conservancy v. CityMortgage. Inc., 2012 ME 103, ¶ 11, 48 A.3d 774 (quotation omitted). "Facts contained in a supporting or opposing statement of material facts, if supported by record citations as required by this rule, shall be deemed admitted unless properly controverted." M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(4). In order to controvert an opposing party's factual statement, a party must "support each denial or qualification by a record citation." M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(2).

         B. Genuine Issues ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.