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.

Romesburg v. Perkins

Superior Court of Maine, Penobscot

October 2, 2019

RICHARD W. ROMESBURG, SR. and ANDREA L. ROMESBURG, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants,
v.
MATTHEW J. PERKINS and MICHELLE R. PERKINS, Defendants / Counterclaim Plaintiffs.

          RICHARD W ROMESBURG SR - PLAINTIFF WINTERPORT ME 04496 Attorney for: RICHARD W ROMESBURG SR JON HADDOW - RETAINED 05/23/2017 FARRELL ROSENBLATT & RUSSELL

          Attorney for: RICHARD W ROMESBURG SR JEREMY M MARDEN - RETAINED 04/12/2017 MAILLOUX & MARDEN PA

          ANDREA L ROMESBURG - PLAINTIFF Attorney for: ANDREA L ROMESBURG JEREMY M MARDEN - RETAINED 04/12/2017 MAILLOUX & MARDEN PA

          MATTHEW J PERKINS - DEFENDANT Attorney for: MATTHEW J PERKINS DONALD F BROWN - RETAINED

          MICHELLE R PERKINS - DEFENDANT Attorney for: MICHELLE R PERKINS DONALD F BROWN - RETAINED

          ORDER

          WILLIAM ANDERSON JUSTICE.

         Hearing was concluded on the parties' complaint and counterclaims on May 17, 2019. The plaintiffs were present and represented by counsel, Jeremy Marden, Esq., while the defendants were present and represented by counsel, Donald Brown, Esq. In the complaint, plaintiffs allege statutory and common law nuisance, and statutory and common law trespass. They have also brought a declaratory judgment count, asking the Court to resolve their boundary dispute with the defendants. The defendants have counterclaimed, alleging abuse of process, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intentional trespass. They also ask the Court to assess punitive damages.

         BACKGROUND

         The Perkinses have owned a camp on Pushaw Lake since 2012, In 2016, the Romesburgs bought the camp to the north. Minor disputes soon arose between the parties over snow plowing and the placement of debris. In the winter of 2017, the Romesburgs' son and some of his friends had disagreements with Mr. Perkins about their placement of ice fishing traps in front of his camp. After one incident in which Romesburg Jr. pointed a hand gun at Mr. Perkins after Perkins had pulled a Romesburg trap out of its hole, the Romesburg-Perkins relationship became extremely adversarial. Following this, Romesburg Jr. and guests engaged in harassing behaviors toward Mr. and Ms. Perkins including making lewd gestures, yelling obscenities, and giving them the finger. The Perkinses dealt with this provocation by installing a fence on the boundary line between the two properties. The Romesburgs claim that this fence was built on their land because the Perkinses are mistaken about the location of the common boundary, hence the filing of the complaint for declaratory judgment.

         ANALYSIS

         A. Complaint

         1. Declaratory Judgment

         The first task for the Court is to locate the common boundary because the plaintiffs' success in asserting some of the other counts rises and falls on the location of the common boundary. The parties' surveyors have contrasting views on the location of the boundary and provided somewhat complicated testimony in support of each opinion. They fundamentally disagree only on the location on the earth of one common corner of the parties' deed descriptions, the Romesburgs' southwest corner which is Perkinses' northwest corner; otherwise their conclusions are consistent. Because of this, the boundary dispute can be resolved by the Court's decision on the location of this corner.

         The Romesburgs' property abuts the Perkinses' property to the north and they share an east-west boundary line. The lake is directly to the west of both properties and an easement used as a camp road runs between the lake and the west line of the properties. The exact location of the common boundary is dependent on locating its western end. The surveyors agree on the basic length and direction of the common boundary from that point to the east, but, of course, its location is dependent on where it starts. If the opinion of the plaintiffs' surveyor is correct, the Perkinses' ...


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.