Hazen v Hazen
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 3, 2004
Supreme Court, Franklin County
ROBERT G. HAZEN, SR., ROBERT G. HAZEN, JR., and GERALDINE HAZEN, Plaintiffs,
against
RICHARD H. HAZEN and JOYCE E. HAZEN, Defendants.
200-963
Appearances: Hughes & Stewart, P.C. (Bryan J. Hughes, Esq., of counsel), attorneys for Plaintiffs; Harris Beach, LLP (Thomas W. Plimpton, Esq., of counsel), attorneys for Defendants.
David Demarest, J.
This is an action to settle a boundary line dispute between the parties. A non-jury trial was held on July 21, 2004. Upon the proof presented and the exhibits received, and upon the post-trial memoranda submitted, the Court renders its Decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiffs are Robert G. Hazen, Sr., his son, Robert G. Hazen, Jr., and his wife, Geraldine Hazen. For sake of simplicity, they will be referred to as "Robert." Defendants are Richard H. Hazen and his wife, Joyce E. Hazen (for sake of brevity, collectively referred to as "Richard"). Richard and Robert, Sr., are brothers.
2. The parties own adjacent farms in the Towns of Dickinson and Moira, Franklin County, NY The farms are bisected east to west by County Route 5, which is the boundary between the two Towns. Robert's property lies to the west of Richard's.
3. Both farms were acquired from Robert and Richard's father, Harold. Robert's by deed dated October 9, 1949, and Richard's by deed dated July 1, 1959. The parties have stipulated that the boundaries as described in their deeds are accurately shown on two survey maps introduced as Exhibit 11-a and 11-b.
4. Sometime after 1883, a railroad known as the Northern Adirondack Railroad Company was constructed. North of County Route 5, the railroad right-of-way is roughly the boundary between Robert and Richard's lands. Richard's deeded western boundary is the east bounds of the railroad, and Robert's deeded eastern boundary is the west bounds of the railroad. [*2]South of Route 5, the deeded boundaries are contiguous and run at an angle through the railroad right-of-way such that a triangular portion of Richard's land extends to the east of the railroad at the southern end of the property, and a triangular portion of Robert's land extends to the west of the railroad at the northern end of the property.
5. The railroad right-of-way is generally 4 rods in width, and while it was operating, fences were maintained on either side. The railroad ceased operations in 1936 and thereafter the tracks were removed.
6. In 1938, Richard's farm was owned by his father, Harold, and Robert's farm was owned by Byron Mosier. Harold and Byron mutually agreed to remove the two fences on the railroad right-of-way and replace it with a single fence down the middle. They further agreed to share the cost and responsibility for maintaining the new fence, one agreeing to maintain the southern half and the other the northern. Harold acquired Byron's farm in 1944 and thereafter conveyed it to Robert.
7. The agreement to maintain the fence was assumed by Richard and Robert when they acquired title. This mutual agreement as to the location of the fence and its maintenance continued without hostility from 1938 through 2000, when a dispute arose between Richard and Robert and this action was commenced.
8. Both Robert and Richard and their predecessors in title have, since 1938, occupied the lands measured from the agreed-upon fence location and have actually, continuously, openly, and notoriously enclosed and cultivated the lands.
9. In 1994, Owasco River Railway, Inc., advertised an auction of railroad properties, which included the Northern Adirondack Railroad Company lands between the parties' farms. Robert attended the auction and he and Robert, Jr., purchased a quit claim deed to the railroad bed for $1,600. They subsequently paid all the back taxes and the parcel is now assessed to them.
10. The Northern Adirondack Railroad Company acquired fee title to the lands in question by virtue of conveyances from: Byron A. Whitney, recorded in Book 71 of Deeds at page 106; Byron A. Whitney recorded in Book 85 of Deeds at page 262; and, Erastus Hutchins recorded in Book 71 of Deeds at page 568. The plain language of these conveyances indicates a transfer of fee title, with, at best, a condition subsequent running to the original grantors. The 1850 Act of the State Legislature which authorized the formation and regulation of railroads provides only an easement may be obtained when the railroad is unable to negotiate a sale and must resort to condemnation.
11. Any condition subsequent was extinguished upon the sale of the dominant estates by Byron Whitney and Erastus Hutchins.
12. Robert and Richard, or their predecessors, have occupied the lands up to the agreed fence in an open, hostile, notorious, and continuous manner as against the Northern Adirondack Railroad Company, or its successors, for more than twenty years.
13. The common fence in the middle of the right-of-way built by Harold Hazen and Byron Mosier has been continually maintained, and Robert and Richard, or their predecessors have acknowledged or acquiesced that it is the boundary between the properties since 1938.
DISCUSSION[*3]
Plaintiffs, at the time of trial, argued that the Northern Adirondack Railroad Company only received easements by virtue of the conveyances to it because of the wording of an 1850 Statute which authorized the formation and regulation of railroad companies. That law set up a procedure for railroad companies to acquire land for rights-of-way which included the arm's length purchase from land owners. It also set up a condemnation procedure which provided that the railroad would acquire an easement rather than a fee. The conveyances in this case, by their specific wording, indicate that the Railroad was obtaining a fee title.
Any wording in the conveyances which would limit the use to a railroad created a mere condition subsequent personal to the grantors. Upon the conveyance of the dominant estates, the conditions subsequent were extinguished. Grant v. Koenig, 39 AD2d 1000 (3d Dep't 1972); Fausett v. Guisewhite, 16 AD2d 82 (1962).
When Harold Hazen and Byron Mosier entered upon the right-of-way and constructed the fence, they did so openly, notoriously, and with hostility to the title of the Railroad. The enclosure was substantial and the lands on both sides of the fence were cultivated and used. The adverse possession continued unabated for the requisite number of years to convey title, whether that period be twenty, fifteen or ten years. At the latest, title to the disputed property reverted to Harold and Mosier, or their successors in 1958.
What of the two gores which are not on the railroad right-of-way, but exist by virtue of the actual deed descriptions? The doctrine of practical location dictates that these have reverted to the parties on either side of the fence.
The doctrine of practical location derives from a long acquiescence by parties to a line known and understood between them. It must be an act of the parties, either express or implied, and mutual so that both parties are equally affected by it. It must be definitely and equally known, understood and settled. A line set unilaterally is merely an expression of individual opinion. Riggs v. Benning, 299 AD2d 716 (3d Dep't 2002).
At the time of the creation of the mutual line, there must have been a disputed, indefinite or uncertain boundary line. When an uncertain line is thus fixed by the mutual acts and acquiescence of the parties, it is binding, not by way of transfer of title, but by estoppel. Adams v. Warner, 209 A.D. 394 (3d Dep't 1924).
The actual deeded boundaries of the adjacent lots here were not definitely known to the parties until the completion of a survey in 2001 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 11-a). Therefore, there was an uncertain line in 1938 when the single fence was erected. It is undisputed that the fence was a mutual project and that its creators, as well as their successors, treated it as the demarcation between the properties and maintained a reasonable and mutually beneficial agreement to maintain it. This agreement persisted for more than 50 years, which clearly satisfies the condition that the practical location be long-standing. Indeed, the factual scenario here is a classic example of the doctrine.
The unfortunate aspect of this case is that Robert and his son expended money to buy the quit claim deed for the right of way. They bought only such title as could be conveyed and by virtue of the prior adverse possession of the lands, title had been divested from the railroad, and so Owasco, if indeed it was the rightful successor to Northern Adirondack, had no title to convey.
[*4]CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The boundary between the lands of the parties has been established by adverse possession and practical location. That line is the fence line existing between the properties along the centerline of the former Northern Adirondack Railroad Company right-of-way.
2. The parties are entitled to a judgment declaring the boundary as such.
Settle judgment.
SO ORDERED
DATED: December 3, 2004, at Chambers, Canton, New York.
DAVID DEMAREST, J.S.C.
ENTER:
{Decision & Order, and moving papers filed}
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
