sound, just[] and fair resolution to the controversy.” (Emphasis added.) That appellants are unhappy with the result is obvious; however they have failed to demonstrate that the decision of the trial justice was erroneous. The findings of the master as set forth in the 2000 report were accepted by the parties and are binding upon appellants. In addition to these findings, the master was charged with recommending a resolution in this case. He did so, and the trial justice adopted those recommendations in his decision. We previously have held that “a trial justice is not at liberty to address an underlying issue not before the court, nor may he or she order a remedy wholly beyond the scope of what the parties have sought.” Santurri v. DiPietro, 818 A.2d 657, 661 (R.I.2003) (<HOLDING>). The original complaint, counterclaims, and
holding that a trial justice asked to determine ownership of real property under a claim of adverse possession may not subsequently order the prevailing party to sell the disputed property to the original owner at a reduced price holding the burden of proof in a bankruptcy court action for declaratory relief as to the ownership of disputed property was on the party making an affirmative claim for relief holding that the current property owner may not assert a public nuisance claim against the former owner holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property recognizing that mcl 57011076 provides a real property owner with a defense to a claim of lien if the owner can show that the sum of payments made pursuant to the specific contract plus the claim of lien exceed the price of the contract