MICELI V. RILEY 79 A.D.2d 165 (1981) CASE BRIEF

MICELI V. RILEY

79 A.D.2d 165 (1981)

NATURE OF THE CASE: All parties challenged a judgment which found that the landowner was the fee owner with the option of either selling for twice the value of any acre of undeveloped land in the immediate vicinity or taking possession after paying the market value of improvements along with reimbursement for property taxes for the previous six years.

FACTS: Miceli (P) claimed she purchased the land we call Miceli East as unimproved land for the sum of $450 in 1951. The purchase is evidenced by a deed from Charles and Marie DeMare, as grantors, dated April 6, 1951. The deed was recorded with the County Clerk on March 31, 1955. Riley et al (D) predicate their claims to the parcel upon a deed from the same DeMares to the Selden Land Corporation. That deed was dated June 7, 1955, and was recorded in the office of the County Clerk on August 8, 1955. In 1969 and 1970, the property purchased by the Selden Land Corporation was improved by the construction of houses and was sold to the individual D homeowners. P's claim is that the land and houses purchased by five of those defendants, and for which two of the defendant mortgagees hold mortgages, encroach upon Miceli East. The trial court held that P had established her cause of action, but it refused to order ejectment and delivery of the property to P. The court chose to invoke its equity powers in order to fashion a remedy which, in its view, would avoid hardship and an unjust result based upon 'what can only fairly be called a mistake either of the surveyors or title examiners or both'. The court ordered P to elect between two options as a method of calculating her damages. P could either sell Miceli East to Ds at a sum equal to twice the value of any one acre of undeveloped land in the immediate vicinity of the property or she could take possession of Miceli East upon payment to Ds of the market value of the improvements made thereon together with reimbursement for all realty taxes paid by the defendants on the property for the preceding six years. Both sides appealed. Following oral argument on appeal both parties made serious efforts to settle but P died. The parties were unable to come to a settlement.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner