The plaintiffs sought declarations of ownership by adverse possession and an easement by necessity over portions of land surrounding their waterfront property, which they claimed were necessary for access and the location of their septic system.
The defendant, who owned the surrounding lands, counterclaimed for the removal of the plaintiffs' structures.
The court found that the plaintiffs had established adverse possession over the land containing their septic system due to a mutual mistake about the property boundaries.
The court also granted the plaintiffs an easement by necessity over the access road, finding that the original subdivision plan intended for the lots to have access, and the property would otherwise be landlocked.
The defendant's counterclaim was largely dismissed, except for an order to remove a small portion of the septic field encroaching on another part of the defendant's land.
