Opinion ID: 2180243
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Plaintiffs' Substantive Claim

Text: Before this Court, plaintiffs argue that, by producing uncontested evidence of their use of lot No. 37 for ten years or more, they alleged facts sufficient to survive defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs assert that there are issues of fact that may prove they are entitled to a possessory interest that does not require ouster of either the owner or third parties from the property. We agree. Rule 8(a) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure requires that every pleading setting forth a claim for relief contain (1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. A pleading need not include the ultimate facts that must be proven in order to succeed on the complaint    [or] to set out the precise legal theory upon which his or her claim is based. Haley v. Town of Lincoln, 611 A.2d 845, 848 (R.I.1992). The pleading simply must provide the opposing party with fair and adequate notice of the type of claim being asserted. Id. We are satisfied that the amended complaint, although not artfully drafted, provided defendant with fair and adequate notice that plaintiffs claim they possess a prescriptive easement in lot No. 37. The amended complaint alleges that plaintiffs have established ownership of [lot No. 37] under the doctrine of adverse possession and requests that the court declare that they have ownership interests in the lot. Section 34-7-1, entitled Conclusive title by peaceful possession under claim of title, governs both claims of title by adverse possession and claims of prescriptive easements. See Frenchtown Five L.L.C. v. Vanikiotis, 863 A.2d 1279, 1283 n. 9 (R.I.2004) (characterizing § 34-7-1 as the adverse possession statute); Burke-Tarr Co. v. Ferland Corp., 724 A.2d 1014, 1020 (R.I.1999) ([O]ne who claims an easement by prescription has the burden of establishing actual, open, notorious, hostile, and continuous use under a claim of right for ten years as required by    § 34-7-1.) (quoting Palisades Sales Corp. v. Walsh, 459 A.2d 933, 936 (R.I.1983)). By alleging that plaintiffs obtained some ownership interest in lot No. 37 by adverse possession, the amended complaint gives adequate notice of the claim of a prescriptive easement. The defendant argues that it was proper for the motion justice to grant summary judgment in his favor because plaintiffs asserted an adverse possession claim and they cannot prove exclusivity. As plaintiffs argued at the summary judgment hearing, although exclusivity is an essential element in a claim of title by adverse possession, one need not prove it to succeed on a claim for a prescriptive easement. Compare Stone v. Green Hill Civic Association, Inc., 786 A.2d 387, 389 (R.I.2001) (One who claims an easement by prescription bears the burden of establishing actual, open, notorious, hostile, and continuous use under a claim of right for at least ten years.), with DeCosta v. DeCosta, 819 A.2d 1261, 1264 (R.I.2003) (To establish a claim for adverse possession, a claimant must demonstrate by strict proof    that the possession was `actual, open, notorious, hostile, under claim of right, continuous, and exclusive ' for the statutory period of ten years.) (quoting Carnevale v. Dupee, 783 A.2d 404, 409 (R.I.2001)). (Emphasis added.) As discussed above, plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a claim for a prescriptive easement and should have the chance to prove the necessary elements of a prescriptive easement at trial. See Stone, 786 A.2d at 391 ([F]actual determinations are generally necessary to determine whether claimants have established the elements of a prescriptive easement.).