Case Title: In re .88 Acres of Property

Citation: 165 Vt 17, 676 A.2d 788

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-03-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re .88 Acres  (95-308); 165 Vt 17; 676 A.2d 788

[Opinion Filed 08-Mar-1996]


  NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                     No. 95-308


In re .88 Acres of Property                            Supreme Court
Owned by the Town of Shelburne
                                                       On Appeal from
                                                       Chittenden Superior Court

                                                       January Term, 1996


Linda Levitt, J.

Steven F. Stitzel of Stitzel & Page, P.C., Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee

Joseph D. Fallon, Hinesburg, for defendants-appellants


PRESENT:  Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       GIBSON, J.   The Town of Shelburne brought this action to quiet title
  to a parcel of land donated to the Town in 1807 subject to the condition
  that the Town build a meeting house on the property and continue to use the
  parcel for that purpose.  The heirs of the donor appeal the superior
  court's summary judgment ruling that the Town had acquired the property by
  adverse possession.  We affirm.

       In 1807, by warranty deed, Benjamin Harrington conveyed two parcels of
  land to the Town.  One of the parcels was donated subject to its use as a
  green or parade ground.  The other, the subject property, was donated as
  long as the Town built a meeting house thereon and continued to use it for
  that purpose.  In 1808, a building known as the White Church was built on
  that property.  From 1808 to 1865, the building served as a meeting house
  for various congregations, as well as the town hall and the town clerk's
  office.  In 1865, the White Church burned, and  a new town hall was
  constructed in the same spot two years later.  The new town hall continued
  to serve as a place of public worship.  In 1871, a two-story school
  building was erected next to the town hall.  The town hall and school were
  destroyed by fire in 1925.  The

 

  following year, a new school was built on the site previously occupied by
  the two buildings that had burned.  In 1927, the present town hall was
  built on a nearby parcel of land conveyed to the Town by another donor.

       The Town commenced suit to quiet title in 1994.  In response to the
  parties' opposing summary judgment motions, the trial court ruled that the
  Town was entitled to the subject property free and clear of restrictions in
  the Harrington deed because the Town had used the property since 1926 in a
  manner adverse to the deed's restrictions.

                                   I.

       An action for the recovery of lands must be "commenced within fifteen
  years after the cause of action first accrues."  12 V.S.A. § 501.  This
  limitations period does not apply, however, "to lands given, granted,
  sequestered or appropriated to a public, pious or charitable use, or to
  lands belonging to the state."  12 V.S.A. § 462.  In appellants' view,
  because the subject property was given for a public use, and has since been
  used or appropriated for public purposes, the limitations period in § 501
  does not apply, and thus the Town may not obtain the property by adverse
  possession.  We disagree.

       Appellants concede that the Harrington deed granted the Town a
  determinable fee in the property.  Consequently, when the Town breached the
  deed restriction by building a school on the property and erecting a new
  meeting house on separate property, the fee automatically reverted to the
  heirs of Benjamin Harrington.  See Ball v. Hall, 129 Vt. 200, 208,