Real property – Trespass – Adverse possession

Listen to this article

Where the Cambridge Housing Authority has claimed trespass by the owners of an abutting lot, the authority is entitled to summary judgment because the trespass is not de minimis and the owners of the abutting lot are precluded from asserting adverse possession.

“When the Cambridge Housing Authority (‘CHA’) discovered that a small, but measurable portion of its property was behind the fence of siblings Gloria and Albert Vasquez, it offered to held move the fence and the structures near it back to the property line. The Vasquezes declined the offer. They filed a complaint in this court, seeking a declaration that their encroachment is de minimis or in the alternative, that they have established ownership of the disputed area through adverse possession. CHA and co-defendant Millers River Holding, LLC (‘MR Holding’) now move for summary judgment on the ground that the undisputed encroachments are not de minimis, and that the Vasquezes could not have acquired CHA’s land through adverse possession because adverse possession does not apply to land that is being used for a public purpose. …

“On the undisputed facts, the defendants have established as a matter of law that the Vasquezes are liable for trespass, that their encroachment is more than de minimis, and that the Vasquezes’ claim of adverse possession is barred by G.L.c. 260, §31.”

Vasquez, et al. v. Cambridge Housing Authority, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-062-22) (9 pages) (Speicher, J.) (Middlesex Land Court) (Docket No. 22 MISC 000117) (Aug. 11, 2022).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.