Petrucelli v. Palmer

569 F.Supp.2d 347 (2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Petrucelli (P) mistakenly believed that a weekend home they were buying from Palmer (D) was fully contained within the boundaries of its plot and that there were no problems with encroachment onto adjacent properties. P made an offer of $900,000, which D accepted. P “hired professionals to conduct a home inspection, test the domestic water, test the air for radon and test the septic system.” Ps were considering tearing down the existing structure and building a new home in its place. P visited the lot on more than one occasion and took measurements there. Nobody advised the P that their property might have encroachment problems up to the 440' contour line. The uncontroverted testimony is that O knew, prior to the closing, that the 440' contour line determined the rear boundary of her property. But crucially, she did not know what that line was, or where precisely on the property it was located. D admits, that “upon receipt and review of the Property Survey . . . P were shocked to learn that a portion of the house at the Premises and almost all of the rear yard, including the area where the septic tank and leaching fields are located, are beyond the rear boundary line of the Premises.” D alleges at no time during her period of ownership was she aware of any issues regarding the location of the septic system or how the house was situated on the lot. During her period of ownership, D was unaware of

anyone else in the area having an issue regarding property boundaries and the septic system.