Lynette Manning v. Eric Slayton and Amanda Slayton

VERMONT SUPREME COURT Case No. 25-AP-177
109 State Street
Montpelier VT 05609-0801
802-828-4774
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a cross-
appellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

ENTRY ORDER

FEBRUARY TERM, 2026

Lynette Manning* v. Eric Slayton and } APPEALED FROM:
Amanda Slayton }
} Superior Court, Lamoille Unit, Civil Division
} CASE NO. 23-CV-04775
Trial Judge: Benjamin Battles

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Plaintiff appeals from the civil division’s judgment in favor of defendants, who are
plaintiff’s daughter and son-in-law, in this boundary dispute. We affirm.

In November 2023, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the southern boundary of her
property (the “Manning lot”) adjoined defendants’ property (the “Slayton lot”), and that
defendants’ fence and outbuildings were encroaching on plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff sought a
declaratory judgment as to the location of the boundary and for the fence and outbuildings to be
removed.

The court held a bench trial in May 2025 and issued a written order containing the
following findings. Plaintiff’s parents gave her the Slayton lot when she married Harland
Manning in 1967. The Slayton lot is approximately half an acre. The deed conveying the lot to
plaintiff and her husband described the property as follows:

[A] triangular shaped piece of land bounded on the north by
Tallman realty, on the south by a small brook and on the west by a
State Highway, and further described as beginning at a point in the
center line of the State Highway leading from Elmore to
Worcester, said point is in the division line of the Tallman-Draper
realty, thence run easterly along the division line between Tallman
and Draper for 350 feet +/- to a point where said division line
intersects a small brook; thence turn and run southwesterly along
center line of said brook 300 feet +/- to a point in center line of
said state highway; thence turn and run northerly along center line
of said state highway for 200 feet +/- to point begun at.
In 1982, plaintiff and her husband acquired the Manning lot, which is approximately 4.5
acres. The property was surveyed in 1981 by Frederick Reed. The deed conveying the Manning
lot describes it as follows:

Starting at an iron pipe set at the edge of the easterly limits of the
right-of-way of Vermont Route 12; said point is on the present
boundary of the within Grantees/Grantors property, thence N 5°
30’ E 206 feet, more or less, along the easterly limits of Vermont
Route 12 to an iron pin set in said limits: thence S 50° 30’ E 580
feet, more or less, to an iron pin set in the ground; thence S 50° 30’
E 653 feet, more or less, to an iron pin set on a fence line; thence S
48° 30’ W 173 feet, more or less, along a fence line and stonewall
to an iron pin set in the ground; thence N 50” 30’ W 623 feet, more
or less, to an iron pin set in the ground; thence N 50° 30’ W 462
feet, more or less, passing through an iron pipe to an iron pin set in
the easterly limits of Vermont Route 12 and point of beginning.

The deed refers to the Reed survey for additional “aid in description.” Plaintiff has lived on the
Manning lot continuously since 1982.

In December 2003, plaintiff and her husband divorced. The divorce order awarded
plaintiff the Manning lot and husband the Slayton lot. At some point after the divorce,
defendants began living on the Slayton lot, though it was unclear when they acquired title to the
property. The 1981 Reed survey indicated a garage on the Slayton lot that extended over the
boundary line into the Manning lot. After the divorce, plaintiff’s husband tore down the garage.

In 2014, defendants had a new survey conducted by David Peatman to mark the boundary
line of the Slayton lot. Defendants later built a fence approximately one-to-two feet south of the
boundary line with the Manning lot as found by the Peatman survey.

After plaintiff filed this lawsuit, defendants hired Gerald Stockman to conduct a new
survey of the Slayton lot. The Stockman survey places the boundary line between the Manning
and Slayton lots north of defendants’ existing fence and outbuildings, meaning that the fence and
outbuildings are entirely on defendants’ property. Stockman testified to this effect at the bench
trial. Plaintiff did not present evidence from a competing land surveyor or any other affirmative
evidence that defendants were encroaching on her property.

The court found Stockman to be qualified and credible in his opinion regarding the
boundary line. The court found that the evidence supported Stockman’s conclusion that the
Peatman survey pin marked the northwest corner of the Slayton lot. There was another surveyor
pin at that corner, but no evidence was presented regarding that pin. There were also other
markers in the ground that were placed at approximately the same location as, or north of, the
Peatman pin.

Plaintiff asserted that the southern boundary of the Slayton lot, which is marked by a
stream, had fluctuated over time. However, the court concluded that this was not relevant to the
location of the northern boundary based on Stockman’s testimony to that effect, and plaintiff
failed to present evidence that historical fluctuations in the stream path required Stockman to
survey the line differently.
2
The court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that Stockman’s survey was inaccurate
because it marked the western boundary of the Slayton lot as 178.47 feet, rather than 200 feet as
stated in the deed. The court found Stockman credible in his explanation that the source deed
was approximate, as indicated by the “+/-” notation, and that it was not standard practice for
modern surveyors to extend the boundary line into the middle of a public highway that the owner
did not control. The court further noted that even if the western boundary was longer than stated
by Stockman, this would push the northern boundary further north and away from defendants’
allegedly encroaching structures. The court therefore entered judgment for defendants. Plaintiff
appealed.

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the court erred and that defendants are encroaching on her
property. She alleges that she has been subjected to a campaign of harassment by defendants
who are seeking to take what is hers. She argues that the Reed survey is correct and that the
Peatman and Stockman surveys are “not legal.” She alleges various discrepancies between the
deed descriptions, surveys, and physical evidence.

“The location of a boundary line on the ground is a question of fact to be determined on
the evidence. The trial court’s findings of fact will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous
despite inconsistencies or substantial evidence to the contrary.” Monet v. Merritt, 136 Vt. 261,
265 (1978).

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate error in the court’s findings, which are supported by
Stockman’s testimony. While plaintiff argues that the court should have followed the Reed
survey, Stockman testified that his survey was generally consistent with the Reed survey and
provided explanations for discrepancies that the court found credible. Stockman testified that the
encroaching garage and barn depicted on that survey had been torn down. His survey showed
that defendants’ existing structures were south of the shared boundary. Plaintiff did not present
any evidence of a different location for the line. Under these circumstances, we see no error in
the judgment.

Affirmed.

BY THE COURT:

Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice

Nancy J. Waples, Associate Justice

3