G. Roberts

Following a twelve-day trial regarding a property boundary and adverse possession dispute, both parties sought costs.

The plaintiffs claimed partial indemnity costs of $150,563.98, while the defendants claimed partial indemnity costs of $248,861.38 and relied on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found that success was equally divided, as the plaintiffs succeeded on the boundary terminus issue and the defendants succeeded on the adverse possession claim.

Consequently, the court ordered that each side bear their own costs.

The plaintiffs commenced an action in 2015 but took no steps for over five years while the principal of the plaintiff corporations faced criminal charges.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing to extend the time to set the action down for trial, but later abandoned it and served a trial record.

The defendants brought cross-motions to proceed with the status hearing.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay, as they unilaterally held the action in abeyance without communicating with the defendants.

The court also found the plaintiffs failed to rebut the strong presumption of prejudice arising from the delay.

The action was dismissed for delay.

The parties appeared before the court to request clarification of paragraph 112 in the first Addendum to Judgment.

The defendants proposed an additional sentence to avoid ambiguity regarding the common boundary between the properties.

The plaintiffs took no position, provided the original meaning remained unchanged.

The court agreed to amend the paragraph to clarify that the common boundary terminating at the water's edge is an ambulatory boundary that moves with the water level.

The parties appeared for further submissions to determine the terminus of the common boundary between their waterfront properties, following a previous judgment.

The court amended the judgment to clarify that the common boundary terminates at the water's edge of Balsam Lake.

On consent, the court also amended the judgment to restrict both parties from launching from or occupying land or water on specific sides of the respondent's dock to prevent impairment of each other's riparian rights.

The plaintiff brought an action for defamation after the defendant, her former tenant, sent emails to her employer alleging she evicted him because he was gay and used cipher encoded messages to organize a conspiracy against him.

The plaintiff moved for a permanent injunction, summary judgment, and to strike the defendant's counterclaim.

The court found the defendant's statements clearly defamatory and impossible to justify, granting summary judgment and awarding $10,000 in damages.

The court also granted a permanent injunction and struck the defendant's counterclaim as scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious.