Opinion ID: 2763907
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Constructive Adverse Possession

Text: [¶7] Typically, an acquisition of title to property through adverse possession is limited to the area of property that has been actually occupied. See Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd. v. Kelly, 654 A.2d 416, 419 (Me. 1995). Pursuant to the doctrine of constructive possession, however, a person can obtain equitable title to the entire parcel described in her deed if she occupies a portion of that parcel in a manner sufficient to establish title by adverse possession. Campbell v. Whitehouse, 122 Me. 409, 417, 120 A. 529 (1923); see also 4 Herbert T. Tiffany & Basil Jones, The Law of Real Property § 1155 at 815 (3d ed. 1939) (stating that “one having ‘color of title,’ that is, claiming under what purports to be a valid muniment of title, although he actually occupies a part only of the tract covered by his muniment of title, is to be regarded as in possession of the whole tract”); Banton v. Herrick, 101 Me. 134, 138-39, 63 A. 671 (1906); Brackett v. Persons Unknown, 53 Me. 228, 231 (1861). To accomplish this, Harvey is required to demonstrate (1) that her possession of the disputed property was under color of title, and (2) that the use of at least a portion of the property by Harvey and her predecessors was sufficient to establish title by adverse possession. 7
[¶8] Harvey’s deed appears to describe a rectangular parcel, the eastern boundary of which runs along the boundary of the Milner Farm.5 However, the shape of the Milner Farm boundary as described in the Furrow deeds and the Harris survey conflicts with that description, creating a latent ambiguity in Harvey’s deed. Milligan v. Milligan, 624 A.2d 474, 477 (Me. 1993) (“A latent ambiguity in a deed is created when, in applying the description to the ground, facts extrinsic to the document controvert or in some way render unclear the deed’s apparently unambiguous terms.” (quotation marks omitted)). [¶9] “When the language of a deed is susceptible of more than one meaning, the trial court must determine the grantors’ intent from contemporaneous circumstances and from standard rules of construction.” Id. The grantor’s intent is relevant even when applying the standard rules of construction, which provide that “boundaries are controlled by, in descending priority, monuments, courses, distances, and quantity unless this produces a result that is absurd or manifestly inconsistent with the parties’ intentions.” Id. at 478 (emphasis added); see also 5 Furrow argues that the parties stipulated to the location of the boundary between the two properties, and that any construction of Harvey’s deed must necessarily conform with the elbow-shaped boundary described in the stipulation. The stipulation provides, “The area depicted on the Harris survey as [the Furrow property] defines the boundaries of what was formerly the Milner Farm as described in the deed . . . . ” (emphasis added.) The parties confirmed at oral argument that the stipulation referred only to the shape of the property described in Furrow’s deed; they disagreed only about the legal effect of that description. Harvey did not stipulate that the boundary described in Furrow’s deed controlled the boundary as described in her own deed. 8 Lloyd v. Benson, 2006 ME 129, ¶ 13, 910 A.2d 1048 (“The rules of construction should be applied beginning with the overarching goal of giving effect to the intent of the parties.”). We have previously stated, “The cardinal rule for the interpretation of deeds and other written instruments is the expressed intention of the parties, gathered from all parts of the instrument, giving each word its due force, and read in the light of existing conditions and circumstances.” Sleeper v. Loring, 2013 ME 112, ¶ 16, 83 A.3d 769 (emphasis added) (quoting Perry v. Buswell, 113 Me. 399, 401, 94 A. 483 (1915)). [¶10] In light of this precedent, the trial court did not err in concluding that, although Harvey’s predecessor-in-title “may not have owned what he was conveying, it is nevertheless clear . . . that he attempted to convey a parcel having a rectangular shape” and that “it was the intention of the grantors and grantees in the Harvey chain of title that the parcel being conveyed had a rectangular shape, consistent with the plaintiff’s claims, but contrary to the stipulated shape of the western Milner line.” Although Furrow’s deed was superior to Harvey’s deed, Harvey’s deed described a rectangular parcel. Thus, Harvey’s possession of the disputed property was under color of title, satisfying the first requirement of adverse possession by constructive possession. 9 2. Use Sufficient to Establish Adverse Possession [¶11] To succeed in a claim of adverse possession, a claimant must demonstrate that his or her use of the property was (1) actual, (2) open, (3) visible, (4) notorious, (5) hostile, (6) under a claim of right, (7) continuous, and (8) exclusive for over twenty years. Weeks v. Krysa, 2008 ME 120, ¶ 12, 955 A.2d 234. The claimant has the burden of proving each of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence, id., and “[w]e will uphold a determination [that a claimant established each element] of adverse possession if supported by credible evidence in the record.” Hennessy v. Fairley, 2002 ME 76, ¶ 25, 796 A.2d 41 (quotation marks omitted); Striefel v. Charles-Keyt-Leaman P’ship, 1999 ME 111, ¶ 7, 733 A.2d 984. [¶12] “Actual possession” means “physical occupancy or control over property.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1282 (9th ed. 2009). “Actual possession and use exists when the land is in the immediate occupancy and physical control of the adverse possession claimant,” Striefel, 1999 ME 111, ¶ 9, 733 A.2d 984 (quotation marks omitted), and is “established when the evidence shows an actual use and enjoyment of the property that is in kind and degree the same as the use and enjoyment to be expected of the average owner of such property.” Emerson v. Me. Rural Missions Ass’n, Inc., 560 A.2d 1, 2 (Me. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Dombkowski v. Ferland, 2006 ME 24, 893 A.2d 599. Here, the trial 10 court found that part of Harvey’s garage is on the disputed triangle, that Jack Jensen established and maintained a lawn, garden, and fruit trees, and that he maintained a road to the lake over the disputed property, which he and his family traversed on a regular basis. These activities constitute actual physical occupancy. [¶13] The trial court’s findings that the use was open, visible, and notorious are similarly supported by the record. “Open means without attempted concealment. Visible means capable of being seen by persons who may view the premises. Notorious means known to some who might reasonably be expected to communicate their knowledge to an owner maintaining a reasonable degree of supervision over his property.” Striefel, 1999 ME 111, ¶ 11, 733 A.2d 984 (footnotes omitted) (citations omitted) (quotation marks omitted). The trial court concluded that, particularly in the northern portion of the property, the Jensens’ concentrated use of the property was readily apparent. Although they are not dispositive, tax maps depicting Harvey’s property as a rectangular lot serve as additional evidence supporting the finding of notorious use. See Holden v. Page, 118 Me. 242, 246, 107 A. 492 (1919) (“[P]ayment of a tax upon land is evidence of a claim of title. If such payment is known to and acquiesced in by the owner, it becomes more significant.” (citations omitted)). [¶14] Regarding the element of hostility, “[h]ostile simply means that the possessor does not have the true owner’s permission to be on the land.” Striefel, 11 1999 ME 111, ¶ 13, 733 A.2d 984 (quotation marks omitted). Here, the trial court’s finding that the possession by Harvey and her predecessors was hostile until 2006 is supported by ample record evidence, including a letter from Furrow to Harvey indicating that the boundary line had been mutually misapprehended, as well as testimony that Jack Jensen never received permission from the Furrows to use the disputed property. [¶15] “Under a claim of right means that the claimant is in possession as owner, with intent to claim the land as its own, and not in recognition of or subordination to the record title owner.” Id. ¶ 14 (alterations omitted) (quotation marks omitted). Again, there is no legitimate dispute that Harvey and her predecessors used the land as if they owned it and that their use was not undertaken in subordination to Furrow’s claim; on the contrary, Harvey and her predecessors occupied the land as if they owned it because they believed they did in fact own it. See Dombkowski, 2006 ME 24, ¶ 24, 893 A.2d 599 (overruling earlier cases to the extent that they “adopted the position that intention to hold only to the true boundary wherever that boundary might be defeats a claim of one seeking title by adverse possession to land beyond the true boundary” (alterations omitted) (quotation marks omitted)). [¶16] “Continuous means occurring without interruption,” and, “[l]ike actual possession and use, continuous possession and use requires only the kind 12 and degree of occupancy (i.e., use and enjoyment) that an average owner would make of the property.” Striefel, 1999 ME 111, ¶ 16, 733 A.2d 984 (quotation marks omitted). “Exclusive possession and use means that the possessor is not sharing the disputed property with the true owner or public at large.” Id. ¶ 17 (quotation marks omitted). Evidence in the record supports the court’s finding that the use by Harvey and her predecessors was continuous and exclusive until 2006. Evidence that Furrow’s use of his own property extended only to the edge of the disputed area is relevant, contrary to Furrow’s assertions, because it supports the trial court’s finding that the use of the disputed area by Harvey and her predecessors was exclusive. [¶17] Finally, “[a] claimant must prove that its possession and use satisfied each of the aforementioned elements simultaneously for a period of at least twenty years.” Id. ¶ 18 (quotation marks omitted). The trial court’s findings refer to use of the property by Harvey’s predecessors beginning as early as 1950. There is no question that the trial court’s finding of use by Harvey and her predecessors for well over forty years is supported by competent record evidence and is not clearly erroneous. [¶18] In addition to arguing that the trial court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous, Furrow and Lane argue that the court’s findings were insufficient as a matter of law to establish adverse possession. In support of this 13 argument, they cite several cases in which we have concluded that certain uses were insufficient on their own to establish title by adverse possession. See, e.g., Weinstein v. Hurlbert, 2012 ME 84, ¶ 12, 45 A.3d 743 (seasonal grass mowing and other “isolated events” insufficient to establish notorious and hostile use); Weeks, 2008 ME 120, ¶ 19, 955 A.2d 234 (evidence that claimants may have cut trees and cleared brush on disputed lot after storms and on a few other occasions, “without more, does not demonstrate hostility or intent to displace the true owner”); Dowley v. Morency, 1999 ME 137, ¶ 20, 737 A.2d 1061 (affirming trial court’s denial of claim of title to disputed area where claimants’ only uses were mowing grass and using driveway). [¶19] Although certain of the activities Harvey and her predecessors engaged in on the disputed area would, on their own, be insufficient to establish adverse possession, we have never said that such activities must be disregarded in determining whether the elements of adverse possession have been satisfied. On the contrary, we have frequently considered such activities in the aggregate, i.e., in the context of a claimant’s overall use of the property. See, e.g., Gay v. Dube, 2012 ME 30, ¶¶ 14-15, 39 A.3d 52 (concluding that the record contained sufficient evidence to support a finding of ownership by adverse possession where claimants “paid taxes on the [disputed property]; posted no trespassing signs; used it for cutting wood, training show cattle, and collecting sap; and [gave] permission for 14 others to cut wood, trim brush, and collect sap there”); Stowell v. Swift, 576 A.2d 204, 205-06 (Me. 1990) (evidence that claimants “used the property for cutting firewood, selling gravel, family picnics, hunting and other activities,” that they conveyed portions of the property, and that the claimants and their predecessors-in-interest had paid taxes on the property was sufficient to support a finding of ownership by adverse possession). [¶20] Here, the court found that Harvey or her predecessors had erected a stone wall and barbed wire fencing, built and maintained a garage, established and maintained a garden and a lawn, planted and maintained fruit trees, maintained a road, and marked the asserted boundary with blazes, all on the disputed property. In addition, the court found that Harvey and her predecessors paid taxes on property that was depicted in the Town tax maps as a rectangular lot consistent with the size and shape of the land to which Harvey seeks title by adverse possession. The court also made findings that Harvey and her predecessors frequently walked the property, cleaned up the fields, hunted, traveled to the lake, cut wood, mowed, and gardened, all beginning as early as 1950. In short, the trial court made the finding, supported by competent record evidence, that the use of the property by Harvey and her predecessors was “comprehensive and complete.” On this record, the trial court committed no error by concluding that each of the 15 elements of adverse possession has been satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence.