A View, and a Finding of Adverse Possession from the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Land Court

EMRG LLC, the owner of a property in Scituate, Massachusetts, filed a complaint containing counts of Try Title and Trespass against its next-door neighbor, Ms. Monteiro-Maraj, after she informed the principal of EMRG LLC that she considered a portion of his property (the “Disputed Area”) to be her property. The case was decided on November 26, 2025, by Gordon H. Piper, Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Land Court, who made a finding of Adverse Possession regarding the property.

A Try Title action is not a traditional complaint. It is used when the record title of land is clouded by an adverse claim, or by the possibility thereof. A plaintiff landowner may file a petition or complaint in the Land Court stating his interest, describing the land, the claims, and the possible adverse claimants so far as known to him, and praying that such claimants may be summoned to show cause why they should not bring an action to try any claim he or she may have to certain land owned by the plaintiff. M.G.L. c. 240 § 1.

In this unusual case, as the trial began, Judge Piper took a View. A View is when a judge or jury makes a site visit, usually during the trial. The Judge will walk the site and maybe take information from counsel, but the parties are not allowed to ask any questions. This is permitted under the Massachusetts Rules of Evidence and may be initiated by a party’s motion or by the Court itself. The purpose of the View is to provide context and help the Court better understand the testimony. The Judge can then use that information when making his findings and decision.

During the trial, testimony from the parties and various relatives described the property’s current ownership and its historical use. The Court segregated the testimony regarding the Disputed Area into the following smaller areas: the Chicken Coop, Swimming Pool, Swing Set, Septic Installation, Social and Family Activity (including activities around the Old Tree), and Landscaping. The Court discussed each in detail.

Ms. Monteiro-Maraj, testified that her mother and grandfather previously owned the property; that she obtained title through a deed of distribution; that her grandfather had planted many trees, and that she held many summer parties there, which the former principal of EMRG LLC sometimes attended.

Ms. Monteiro-Maraj then testified to something that caught the court’s attention, that she and her brothers and sisters used a large deciduous tree on the property, surrounded by landscape mulch and smaller plantings (the “Old Tree”), for their annual Easter Egg hunts beginning in the 1970’s, a tradition that was continued with her own children. Also in her testimony, Ms. Monteiro-Maraj admitted that she had removed survey stakes set along the boundary lines on at least two occasions, and that she had informed the principal of EMRG LLC that she considered the disputed area to be her property.

It is well settled in Massachusetts that to establish title by adverse possession to land owned of record by another, a claimant must show proof of nonpermissive use which is actual, open, notorious, exclusive, and adverse for twenty years. The person claiming title to the land carries the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

After analyzing the caselaw and applying the elements to each area, the Court found in part for the Plaintiff, ruling that the Plaintiff is the record owner of the Disputed Area, EXCEPT for the area under and around the Old Tree that is landscaped and mulched (the “Old Tree Area”), because Ms. Monteiro-Maraj had successfully proven that she acquired title by adverse possession to the Old Tree Area, due in part to the family history of Easter Egg hunts.