Answer: Piszcz, Jr., Edward et al vs. Stanley, David W. et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                [D.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Bristol, ss. Superior Court Department
Docket No. 1973CV00704

EDWARD PISZCZ, JR. and )
CHRSTINE A. PISZCZ, BRISTOL. SS SUPERIOR courT
j Li
Plaintiffs } FEB 8 2020
v. ) MARC J. SANTOS. ESQ.
) CLERK/MAGISTRATE
DAVID W. STANLEY and )
ELIA STANLEY, )
)
Defendants )

ANSWER

Now come defendants, David W. Stanley and Elia Stanley, and they respond to Plaintiff's

Complaint as follows:
Introduction

The Introduction to Plaintiffs’ Complaint sets forth a series of allegations and a
statement of the Plaintiffs’ intent in bringing this action. Defendants specifically deny any and
all statements which allege that Plaintiffs actively used the abandoned concrete structure (or
any other portion of Plaintiffs’ property) openly, continuously, adversely, exclusively,
notoriously and under a claim of right for the requisite twenty (20) year period. The remaining
statements of intent do not require a response. To the extent a response is required to any of the
remaining allegations, Defendants state: Denied.

Parties

Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny this paragraph, therefore:

Defendants state: Denied.. Adinitted.

. Admitted.
CHAIN OF TITLE OF THE PARTIES
Defendants’ Chain of Title
. Admitted.
. Admitted.

. Admitted that Exhibit 4 appears to be a copy of a deed recorded at the Bristol County Registry
of Deeds evidencing the described transaction. Defendants are without information or admit or
deny the intent and authority of the parties to the transaction or the completeness of the title
history in this portion of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

. Defendants admit that there is a new house on the property. They are without sufficient
information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph, therefore: Defendants
state: Denied.

. Admitted that Exhibit 5 appears to be a copy of a deed recorded at the Bristol County Registry
of Deeds evidencing the described transaction. Defendants are without information or admit or
deny the intent and authority of the parties to the transaction or the completeness of the title
history in this portion of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

[sic] Admitted that Exhibit 6 appears to be a copy of a deed recorded at the Bristol County
Registry of Deeds evidencing the described transaction. Defendants note that the notation on
the deed references property at 215 Fisher Road not 21] Fisher Road. Defendants are without
information or admit or deny the intent and authority of the parties to the transaction or the
completeness of the title history in this portion of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

. Admitted that Exhibit 7 appears to be a copy of a deed recorded at the Bristol County Registry

of Deeds evidencing the described transaction. Defendants are without information or admit or10.

i.

1,

B.

14.

ib.

deny the intent and authority of the parties to the transaction or the completeness of the
description of the property or the title history in this portion of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
Admitted that Exhibit 8 appears to be a copy of a deed recorded at the Bristol County Registry
of Deeds evidencing the described transaction. Defendants are without information or admit or
deny the intent and authority of the parties to the transaction or the completeness of the
description of the property or the title history in this portion of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
Admitted that Exhibit 9 appears to be a copy of a deed recorded at the Bristol County Registry
of Deeds evidencing the described transaction. Defendants are without information or admit or
deny the intent and authority of the parties to the transaction or the completeness of the
description of the property or the title history in this portion of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
Plaintiffs’ Chain of Title
Admitted that Exhibit 10 appears to be a copy of a deed recorded at the Bristol County Registry
of Deeds evidencing the described transaction. Defendants are without information or admit or
deny the intent and authority of the parties to the transaction or the completeness of the
description of the property or the title history in this portion of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
Admitted that Exhibit 1 appears to be a copy of a Bristol County Probate Court records
evidencing the described transaction. Defendants are without information or admit or deny the
intent and authority of the parties to the transaction or the completeness of the Probate Court
history in this portion of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
Admitted that Exhibit 12 appears to be a copy of a deed recorded at the Bristol County Registry
of Deeds evidencing the described transaction. Defendants are without information or admit or
deny the intent and authority of the parties to the transaction or the completeness of the
description of the property or the title history in this portion of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
Admitted that Exhibit 13 appears to bea copy of a deed recorded at the Bristol County Registry

of Deeds evidencing the described transaction. Defendants are without information or admit ordeny the intent and authority of the parties to the transaction or the completeness of the
description of the property or the title history in this portion of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
Adverse Use by Plaintiffs and in their Predecessors in Title to

16. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny this paragraph, therefore:
Defendants state: Denied.

17. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny this paragraph, therefore:
Defendants state: Denied.

18. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny this paragraph, therefore:
Defendants state: Denied.

19. Defendants admit that Exhibit 14 appears to be a record from the Building Department.
Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of this
paragraph, therefore: Defendants state: Denied.

20. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny this paragraph, therefore:
Defendants state: Denied.

21. Denied.

22. Denied.
24[sic] Denied.

25. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny this paragraph, therefore:
Defendants state: Denied.

26. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny this paragraph, therefore:
Defendants state: Denied.

27. Denied.

28. Defendants admit that Exhibit 16 depicts a portion of the parties’ property. Defendants deny the
remaining allegations in this paragraph.

29. Denied.30. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny this paragraph, therefore:

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

Defendants state: Denied.
Denied.
Denied.
32[sic] Denied.
Defendants admit that Exhibit 23 is comprised of two photographs showing a vehicle parked on
Defendants’ property.
COUNT I

Plaintiffs versus Defendants for Adverse Possession

Defendants restate their responses to Paragraphs 1-33 as if fully set forth herein.

Denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

The Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted
The Complaint fails on the grounds of Estoppel.

The Complaint fails on the grounds of Laches.

The Complaint fails on the grounds of License.

The Complaint fails on the grounds of Release.

The Complaint fails on the grounds of Statute of Frauds.

The Complaint fails on the grounds of Statute of Limitations.

The Complaint fails on the grounds of Waiver.Dated:

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID W. STANLEY and
ELIA STANLEY

By their Attorney,

   

MOSES. SMATIEE
50 Homers Wharf
New Bedford, MA 02740
(508) 993-9711

BBO # 633540