Doman and Brogan acquired title to their respective adjoining lands from grants given by Brogan's mother and Doman's grandmother Brogan rented from her mother in 1976 and then purchased the property in 1972. A literal description of Brogan's deed indicated that the lots were to be divided according to the center wall as further described by metes and bounds figures. Doman (P) entered evidence at trial that there was no one center wall forming an unbroken vertical plane from the basement to the second floor. Furthermore, the projected metes and bounds property line used to demarcate the mutual boundary between the lots forms one vertical plane not consistent with any wall located in the basement, first or second floor of the dwelling. P then asserted rights to a second-floor bedroom, basement steps and landing occupied by Brogan (D). The trial court abandoned the metes and bounds division line because the deeds supported an intention to divide the double dwelling along the central walls. Use of the metes and bounds would result in an absurd dividing of rooms.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.