Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Marshall v. Soffer

Appellate Court of Connecticut
756 A.2d 284 (2000)


Facts

Patrick Marshall and Deborah Marshall (plaintiffs) owned land in Branford, Connecticut. The Marshalls sought to determine the boundary between their property and neighboring property owned by Joseph Soffer (defendant). The Marshalls sued to quiet title to the land based on the actual boundary line. Soffer claimed that, regardless of the boundary determination, he had acquired title to the disputed land by adverse possession. Soffer also argued the Marshalls’ deed was ambiguous, because a monument in the description had been lost. In addition, Soffer presented a 1967 map that had been created for Soffer, indicating that the property lines shown were as agreed to by Soffer and Huzar, who owned the property before the Marshalls. However, this map was not referenced in any deed. Finally, Soffer asserted that the doctrine of acquiescence in a boundary applied and was satisfied by Huzar. The trial court found that the Marshalls’ deed was not ambiguous, a 1967 map did not modify the deed’s description, and Soffer failed to prove adverse possession. The trial court ordered Soffer to remove a fence and other material in accordance with the deed’s description. Soffer appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Dupont, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.