THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT 2011 TERM OCTOBER SESSION Case No. 2011-0227 MICHAEL O’HEARNE AND MARIE O’HEARNE Petitioners – Appellees v. JAMES U. McCLAMMER, JR. Respondent – Appellant and JAMES U. McCLAMMER, JR., TRUSTEE OF THE PROFIT SHARING PLAN OF CONNECTICUT VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. Petitioner – Appellant v. MICHAEL O’HEARNE AND MARIE O’HEARNE Respondents – Appellees ______________________________________________________________________________ RULE 7 APPEAL FROM SULLIVAN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ______________________________________________________________________________ OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANT - JAMES U. McCLAMMER, JR., TRUSTEE OF THE PROFIT SHARING PLAN OF CONNECTICUT VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. ______________________________________________________________________________ Bradford T. Atwood, Esq. NH Bar No. 8512 CLAUSON & ATWOOD 10 Buck Road Hanover, NH 03755 603-643-2102 Oral Argument by: James M. McClammer or Bradford T. Atwood, Esq. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii STATUTORY PROVISIONS .........................................................................................................v QUESTIONS PRESENTED ...........................................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF CASE, FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY .........................................2 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................................................................................11 STANDARD OF REVIEW ...........................................................................................................13 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................13 I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING MCCLAMMER’S QUIET TITLE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED AND IN DENYING HIS MOTION FOR A REHEARING ON THAT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ....................................................................................13 A. The Trial Court Misconstrued The Statute of Limitation (RSA 508:2) By Not Understanding Time-barring Cannot Precede A Finding Of Adverse Possession………………………………………………………………………..14 1. The trial court overlooked that RSA 508:2 is based on common law elements of adverse possession that must be met before time-barring can occur……………………………………………………………………..14 2. The trial court erred in time-barring McClammer solely on the basis of a change in a property description in his title chain……………………….15 B. The Trial Court Additionally Erred In Denying McClammer’s Motion For A Rehearing To Present Evidence Rebutting The Statute of Limitations Defense That Was Raised Sua Sponte ………………………………………………….…16 II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THE O’HEARNES ACQUIRED TITLE TO THE DISPUTED AREA BY ADVERSE POSSESSION ……………………....18 A. The O’Hearnes’ Use of The Disputed Area Fails To Meet The Elements Of Adverse Possession………………………………………………………………19 1. The O’Hearnes’ occasional recreational use of the disputed area does not meet the ‘continuous’, ‘notorious’ or ‘uninterrupted’ elements………....21 2. Ms. Hinchliffe’s (McClammer’s predecessor) shared use of the disputed area with the O’Hearnes defeats the O’Hearnes’ claim of ‘adverse’ and ‘exclusive’ use…………………………………………………………...22 i B. The O’Hearnes Do Not Have Color Of Title To The Disputed Area……………23 1. The O’Hearnes are not the grantee of an instrument describing the bounds of the disputed area………………………………………………………24 2. Since the O’Hearnes do not have color of title it cannot be used to support the ‘adverse’ and ‘notorious’ elements required for adverse possession...24 III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RELYING ON THE 1929 DEED IN MCCLAMMER’S TITLE CHAIN TO SUPPORT A FINDING THE BOUNDARY IS ON THE SOUTH BANK OF THE RIVER ……………………………………………………….25 A. The Property Description In The 1929 Deed Is Ambiguous…………………….26 B. Proper Interpretation Of The 1929 Deed (a) Indicates The Metes-And-Bounds Portion Of The Boundary Description Is Inaccurate and (b) Confirms The Boundary Is On The North Side Of The River……………………………….….27 IV. EVEN IF THE BOUNDARY IS AT THE MARKERS ON THE SOUTH BANK THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING MCCLAMMER TITLE TO THE CENTER OF THE MAIN CHANNEL OF THE RIVER …………………………………....32 A. The Adjacent Upland Owner of Property Bounded On A Non-Navigable River Has Riparian Rights And Title Ownership To The Center Of The Main Channel…………………………………………………………………………..33 B. The Markers On The South Bank Are Located At The Edge Of The River, Therefore McClammer’s Title Extends To The Middle Of The River…………..34 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................34 STATEMENT OF ORAL ARGUMENT ......................................................................................35 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................................................35 DECISIONS OF LOWER COURT I. Sullivan County Superior Court Notice of Decision and Order dated December 30, 2010 …………………………………………………….…36 II. Sullivan County Superior Court Notice of Decision and Order Denying Motion to Reconsider dated March 4, 2011……………………………………...49 APPENDIX (ATTACHED AS TWO SEPARATE VOLUMES) Volume 1………………………………………………………………….…….……1-187 Volume 2…………………………………………………………….……..……...188-310 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Barnard v. Elmer , 128 N.H. 386 (1986) ........................................................................................16 Barrows v. Boles , 141 N.H. 382 (1996) .........................................................................................13 Blagbrough Family Realty Trust v. A & T Forest Products. , 155 N.H. 29 (2007) ........................... 10, 13, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22 Chao v. The Richey Co., 122 N.H. 1115 (1982) ............................................................................27 Cushing v. Miller , 62 N.H. 517 (1883) ..........................................................................................20 Dame v. Fernald , 86 N. H. 468 (1934) ..............................................................................20, 23, 24 Duxbury-Fox v. Shakhnovich , 159 N.H. 275 (2009) .....................................................................13 Exeter Hospital v. Hall , 137 N. H. 397 (1993) ........................................................................16, 17 Fagan v. Grady , 101 N.H. 18, 21 (1957) .......................................................................................29 Finlay v. Stevens , 93 N. H. 124 (1944) ..........................................................................................30 Flanagan v. Prudhomme , 138 N.H. 561 (1994) ..........................................................15, 19, 20, 26 Grant v. Fowler , 39 N.H. 101 (1859) ......................................................................................23, 24 Hemon v. Rowe Chevrolet Co. , 108 N.H. 11 (1967) .....................................................................20 Hewes v. Bruno, 121 N.H. 32 (1981) .......................................................................................14, 15 Judge v. Field , 112 N.H. 337, 340 (1972) .....................................................................................29 Kellison v. McIsaac , 131 N.H. 675 (1989) ..............................................................................15, 19 Kennett Corporation v. Pondwood Co., 108 N.H. 30 (1967) ........................................................29 Luneau v. MacDonald , 103 N.H. 273, 276 (1961) ........................................................................33 MacKay v. Breault , 121 N.H. 135 (1981) ......................................................................................31 Mastin v. Prescott , 122 N.H. 353 (1982) .................................................................................29, 30 Mastroianni v. Wercinski , 158 N.H. 380 (2009)............................................................................19 iii Nichols v. Suncook Manufacturing Co. , 34 N.H. 345 (1857) ........................................................33 Norway Plains Co. v. Bradley, 52 N.H. 86 (1872) ........................................................................33 Pease v. Whitney , 78 N.H. 201 (1916) ...........................................................................................21 Pike v. Hood , 67 N.H. 171 (1891) .................................................................................................33 Poire v. Serra , 99 N.H. 154 (1954)................................................................................................33 Riverwood Commercial Properties, Inc. v. Cole , 138 N.H. 333 (1994) ........................................15 Roberts v. Claremont Railway & Lighting Co., 74 N.H. 217 (1907) ............................................33 Seward v. Loranger , 130 N.H. 570 (1988) ....................................................................................15 Swain v. Pemigewasset Power Company, 76 N.H. 498 (1912) .....................................................33 Wisniewski v. Gemmill , 123 N.H. 701 (1983)................................................................................33 Statutes New Hampshire Rev. Stat. Ann. § 498:5-a ......................................................................................8 New Hampshire Rev. Stat. Ann. § RSA 508:2, I ...................................9,