## Facts

- Patrick Marshall and Deborah Marshall owned residential property in Branford, Connecticut, adjoining property owned by Joseph Soffer.
- A dispute arose over the location of the common boundary and ownership of a strip of land between the parcels.
- The Marshalls brought an action to determine the boundary and to quiet title in themselves based on the metes-and-bounds description in their warranty deed and prior deeds in their chain of title.
- Soffer argued the Marshalls’ deed description was ambiguous because a called-for monument in the description (a starting-point marker) could not be found when the dispute arose.
- Soffer relied heavily on a survey map prepared for him in 1967 and recorded in the land records in 1968. The map stated that the property lines shown were “as agreed” to by Soffer and Huzar, a prior owner of the Marshalls’ parcel.
- The 1967 map was not referenced or incorporated in any deed in either party’s chain of title and was not tied to a conveyance by identifying a grantor or grantee; the trial court also found no recorded boundary-line agreement connected to the map.
- Evidence at trial supported the Marshalls’ position that the deed description could be laid out on the ground using the deed’s calls and other existing reference points, without using the 1967 map to change the written description.
- Soffer also claimed the map line controlled through a boundary agreement or boundary by acquiescence involving the Marshalls’ predecessors.
- Alternatively, Soffer claimed he had obtained title to the disputed strip by adverse possession, relying on limited acts such as placing or maintaining a fence and other materials and paying taxes on his larger tract.
- After a bench trial, the Superior Court entered judgment for the Marshalls, quieted title in them under the deed description, rejected Soffer’s acquiescence/agreement and adverse possession claims, and ordered Soffer to remove the fence and other materials from the disputed area.
- Soffer appealed to the Appellate Court of Connecticut.

## Issues

1. Whether the Marshalls’ deed contained a controlling, unambiguous boundary description despite a missing monument, so that the court did not need to treat the 1967 map as controlling extrinsic evidence.
2. Whether the boundary shown on the 1967 map became the legal boundary through a boundary-line agreement or boundary by acquiescence involving the Marshalls’ predecessors.
3. Whether Soffer proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that he acquired title to the disputed strip by adverse possession.

## Decision

- The Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the judgment for the Marshalls.
- The court upheld the trial court’s finding that the deed description was not ambiguous and could be applied on the ground using surveying methods and remaining deed calls.
- The court agreed that the 1967 map did not amend, supersede, or modify the Marshalls’ deed description because it was not incorporated by reference into any deed and was not supported by a recorded boundary-line agreement binding later purchasers without notice.
- The court upheld the rejection of Soffer’s boundary-by-agreement and boundary-by-acquiescence claims, finding insufficient proof that the Marshalls or their predecessors mutually recognized and occupied to the map line as the boundary.
- The court upheld the finding that Soffer failed to establish adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence, including failure to show exclusive, hostile possession for the statutory period.
- The order requiring Soffer to remove the fence and other materials remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Deed interpretation seeks the intent expressed in the deed’s language; when the description can be applied on the ground, the deed controls the boundary.
- A latent ambiguity exists only when collateral facts make a deed’s otherwise clear language uncertain; extrinsic evidence may resolve a true ambiguity but may not be used to rewrite a clear description.
- The loss of a called-for monument does not by itself make a deed ambiguous if the line can still be located through other calls and reference points.
- A survey map, even if recorded, does not change title or boundary lines unless it is incorporated into the deed or supported by a valid, provable boundary-line agreement that binds successors with notice.
- Boundary by agreement or acquiescence requires proof of uncertainty about the line and mutual recognition and occupation consistent with a claimed line for a long period; the existence of a unilateral map stating an “agreement” is not enough without proof of assent and notice.
- Adverse possession in Connecticut requires clear and convincing proof of open, visible, continuous, exclusive, and hostile possession under a claim of right for at least fifteen years, including ouster of the record owner; minimal use and payment of taxes alone do not satisfy this burden.
- On appeal, factual findings in boundary and adverse possession cases are reviewed for clear error.

## Conclusion

Marshall v. Soffer affirms that where a deed’s metes-and-bounds description can be located on the ground, it governs the boundary, and an unincorporated survey map stating an “agreed” line cannot displace deed descriptions or bind later purchasers without proof of a binding agreement and notice; the court also affirmed the rejection of boundary-by-acquiescence and adverse possession claims and upheld an order requiring removal of encroachments from the disputed strip.


Marshall v. Soffer, 756 A.2d 284 (2000)