Pugatch v. Stoloff, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 536, 540, 671 N.E.2d 995 (1996) involved a dispute between neighbors whose lots fronted on different streets but shared a common rear lot line. 41 Mass. App. Ct. at 536. There, the portion of the disputed area that defendants continually maintained as a lawn, maintained hedges on, and built a railroad-tie retaining wall was acquired through adverse possession. Id. at 540. However, the portion of the disputed area to the rear of the lot, which extended into plaintiff's lot, was wooded. Id. The court found that although the defendants had done some pruning and clearing, there was no "visible or apparent distinction" between the disputed area and the rest of the plaintiff's lot. Id. Therefore, use of that portion of the disputed area was insufficient to establish adverse possession. Id. In Pugatch v. Stoloff, the defendants claimed adverse possession of several parcels of land owned by the plaintiff, two of which were uncultivated, wooded parcels and one of which was a yard maintained with a lawn and hedges. The defendants alleged that they had demonstrated evidence of clearing, cultivating and maintaining these areas. The trial judge found, and the Appeals Court affirmed, that the defendants failed to establish adverse possession to the wooded parcels because the defendants showed only sporadic use of these parcels, and there was "no visible or apparent distinction" between the disputed area and the rest of plaintiff's property. Id. at 536. Furthermore, the Appeals Court overturned the trial judge's finding that defendants failed to establish adverse possession to the maintained parcel; they found, contrary to the trial judge, that the defendants had established ownership of the maintained parcel, "the boundary of which was distinct and well defined," because the plaintiff had not interrupted defendants' exclusive use of the maintained parcel within the twenty year adverse possession period. The Appeals Court determined that a record owner's marking and staking of the four corners of his lot were insufficient to interrupt an abutter's exclusive possession of a portion of the record owner's land. Pugatch v. Stoloff, 41 Mass. App. Ct. at 538. In reversing the trial court's decision, in part, the Appeals Court stated that the "territorial extent of an owner's reentry is a question of fact," Pugatch v. Stoloff, 41 Mass. App. Ct. at 541, citing Rothery v. MacDonald, 329 Mass. 238, 240, 107 N.E.2d 432 (1952), and pointed out that the stakes were not clearly visible to the claimants; the stakes were placed outside the lawn area; and neither the record owner nor his agents entered the lawn area of the disputed area. Pugatch v. Stoloff, 41 Mass. App. Ct. at 541 n. 7, 542, 543.