Opinion ID: 2258268
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claim of Right and Hostility

Text: The trial justice ruled that plaintiffs failed to establish that their predecessor in interest, Amarantes, held the parcels in question under a claim of right, citing Amarantes's admitted discovery via a 1978-79 survey that the parcels were not a part of the property he had acquired from the Almys. The trial justice determined that, as a result of this discovery, Amarantes was on notice that he did not hold title to the parcels in question, and therefore he could not possess the parcels under a claim of right. He stated that [t]his court is not aware of any authority that allows someone who knows he does not own land to occupy it and divest the true owner of his interest. Indeed, the trial justice believed that Amarantes thereafter embarked upon a course of conduct designed to bootstrap himself into ownership. Thus, based on these findings, the trial justice ruled that Amarantes's use of the property after the 1978-79 survey was neither under a claim of right nor sufficiently open and notorious, and therefore did not satisfy the statutory requirements for adverse possession. Contrary to the trial justice's belief, however, a person attempting to obtain title through adverse possession need not be under a good faith mistake that he or she had legal title to the land. 16 Powell on Real Property, § 91.05[1] at 91-23 (2000). Rather, to constitute a hostile use, the adverse possessor need only establish a use `inconsistent with the right of the owner, without permission asked or given,    such as would entitle the owner to a cause of action against the intruder [for trespass].' Id. Similarly, a good faith mistake concerning who owns the land in question is not required to establish a claim of right to a disputed parcel: Possession under a claim of right means that the entry by the claimant must be in accordance with a claim to the property as the claimant's own with the intent to hold it for the entire statutory period without interruption. This intention must be demonstrated by open, visible acts or by declarations regarding such purpose.    In essence, to require adverse possession under a claim of right is the same as requiring hostility, in that both terms simply indicate that the claimant is holding the property with an intent that is adverse to the interests of the true owner. Unfortunately, claim of right is sometimes confused with color of title   , which requires possession in accordance with a colorable legal title to the property. Id. § 91.05[4] at 91-28, 91-29. Thus, a claim of right may be proven through evidence of open, visible acts or declarations, accompanied by use of the property in an objectively observable manner that is inconsistent with the rights of the record owner. See, e.g., Picerne v. Sylvestre, 122 R.I. 85, 91-92, 404 A.2d 476, 479-80 (1979). In other words, a claim of right to own or use property will arise by implication through objective acts of ownership that are adverse to the true owner's rights, one of which is to exclude or to prevent such use. Reitsma v. Pascoag Reservoir & Dam, LLC, 774 A.2d 826, 832 (R.I.2001); see also Carnevale, 783 A.2d at 412 (distinguishing claim of right from color of title). Thus, in establishing hostility and possession under a claim of right, the pertinent inquiry centers on the claimants' objective manifestations of adverse use rather than on the claimants' knowledge that they lacked colorable legal title. See 5 Restatement of the Law Property § 458, comment d at 2927 (1944); 3 Am.Jur.2d Adverse Possession, § 45 (2002). Accordingly, even when claimants know that they are nothing more than black-hearted trespassers, they can still adversely possess the property in question under a claim of right to do so if they use it openly, notoriously, and in a manner that is adverse to the true owner's rights for the requisite ten-year period. Here, the trial justice improperly factored into his claim-of-right analysis Amarantes's subjective knowledge as of 1978 that he lacked colorable legal title to the parcels. As noted above, however, a claim of right to own or use property does not arise from the claimants' mistaken belief that they hold title to the land, but rather from their objective acts of ownership evidencing an intent to use and possess the premises in a manner adverse to the owner of record. This remains true even in a situation in which the claimants know that they do not hold record title to the property in question but still engage in a calculated attempt to deprive the record owner of the title through actions and uses that, if continued for the requisite period, will ripen into adverse possession. In short, it is not necessary in order that a use be adverse that it be made either in the belief or under a claim that it is legally justified. 5 Restatement of the Law Property § 458, comment d at 2927. Here, the trial justice noted that Amarantes undertook such activities on the property as posting no-trespass signs, constructing stone walls, improving drainage, and wood cutting. Irrespective of Amarantes's knowledge that he was not the title holder, these objective manifestations of Amarantes's claim of ownership should have been evaluated by the trial justice to determine whether they were sufficiently open and notorious to constitute adverse uses of the property, thereby establishing a claim of right. Because he did not do so, we vacate the judgment and remand the case for further findings and the entry of an amended judgment.