Plante v. Wylie

Edmond Plante and Curtis Plante (plaintiffs) received approval from the Town of Bolton for a residential subdivision. Later, the Plantes obtained permits for two septic systems on a portion of the subdivision that bordered property owned by the Ela family. During construction, the Plantes learned of a potential defect in their title to the land on which the subdivision was situated. The Ela family claimed ownership of a portion of the land included in the Plantes’ subdivision plan. Negotiations to resolve the boundary dispute between the Ela family and a local conservation trust, including David Wylie (defendant), the conservation trust’s attorney, failed. Later, the Plantes applied for a special permit with the town board to expand the Plantes’ subdivision plan to create a new lot, lot 10, and enlarge an existing lot, lot 8, to make room for a septic system. The conservation trust and the Ela family disputed the Plantes’ ownership claim over the land for lots 8 and 10. Subsequently, the Ela family deeded a portion of their property that included the disputed land to the conservation trust. At a hearing for the Plantes’ permit application, Wylie appeared on behalf of the conservation trust and challenged the Plantes’ claim to the land. The town board requested evidence regarding the subdivision boundary. An engineer hired by the conservation trust found that the conservation trust owned 7.5 acres of land to which the Plantes claimed title. The Plantes had already developed and sold some of this land. After this discovery, Wylie sent a settlement letter to the Plantes, offering that the conservation trust would release its rights to the already-developed land if the Plantes agreed to release their claims to lots 8 and 10 and to pay costs and attorney’s fees. When the conservation trust learned that construction was underway on the disputed land, Wylie successfully sought a preliminary injunction in the land court. Subsequently, the Plantes filed a complaint against Wylie in the superior court. The Plantes alleged that Wylie unlawfully interfered with the rights to use their property based solely on Wylie’s communications regarding the settlement offer, not on statements made to the town board or the land court. Wylie filed a special motion to dismiss the complaint under the anti-strategic-litigation-against-public-participation (anti-SLAPP) statute.