RICHARD W. ROMESBURG, SR. and ANDREA L. ROMESBURG, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants,
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
L ROMESBURG - PLAINTIFF Attorney for: ANDREA L ROMESBURG
JEREMY M MARDEN - RETAINED 04/12/2017 MAILLOUX & MARDEN
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
WILLIAM ANDERSON JUSTICE.
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
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
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.
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' ...