Dombkowski v. Ferland

2006 ME 24 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2006

Facts

Ferland and Dombkowski own abutting parcels of real estate in Burnham. Dombkowski acquired his property from his brother, Anthony, who purchased it in 1967. From 1967 until his death in 1994, Anthony cleared and maintained an overgrown disputed area, turning it into a lawn and using a gravel driveway on it. A wire fence was erected in the early 1970s, and fir trees were planted in the 1980s. In 2001, Dombkowski drilled a well in the disputed area. Dombkowski believed he owned the land until Ferland's 2002 survey revealed the property was not included in his deed.

Procedural history

Dombkowski filed a complaint in the Superior Court on August 29, 2002, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding ownership and injunctions. The Superior Court issued a preliminary injunction in April 2003 and, following a jury-waived trial, granted Dombkowski title by adverse possession and enjoined Ferland. Ferland appealed this judgment to the current court.

Issue

The central legal question is whether 14 M.R.S. § 810-A eliminates the common law subjective intent requirement for adverse possession claims when possession results from a mistaken boundary line. Ferland argued the court erred in applying and interpreting this statute, contending it does not apply to common law claims or eliminate the "claim of right" element.

Holding

The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, granting Dombkowski title by adverse possession to the disputed parcel and enjoining Ferland from interference. It held that the lower court did not err in applying and interpreting 14 M.R.S. § 810-A.

Rule

Under common law, adverse possession requires actual, open, visible, notorious, hostile, under a claim of right, continuous, and exclusive possession for twenty years. Historically, Maine's common law required subjective intent, meaning a mistaken belief about a boundary defeated a claim if the intent was only to claim to the true boundary. However, 14 M.R.S. § 810-A amends this by stating that if possession is by mistake as to a boundary, and is open, notorious, under claim of right, and continuous for the statutory period, the hostile nature is established without further evidence of knowledge or intention. The Legislature intended this statute to eliminate the subjective intent requirement for adverse possession claims, thereby overruling prior Maine case law. The court clarified that there is only one claim for adverse possession, which is the common law claim as amended by this statute.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-09-17. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.