Opinion ID: 2169574
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Acquiescence and Adverse Possession

Text: When he rendered his decision in this case, the trial justice discussed both acquiescence and adverse possession. The final judgment, however, refers only to acquiescence: By clear and convincing evidence there was an acquiescence made by both the Acamporas and by the predecessor owners to the Pearsons, for the term of at least ten years or more to that boundary made by the evergreens as well as the arborvitaes   . The trial justice ordered that the boundary line between the two lots shall run down the line of the arborvitaes and then along a line two feet to the north of the evergreens, extending down to Narragansett Bay. We agree with the trial justice that Acampora and the Pearsons' predecessors in title acquiesced in the boundary line created by the arborvitae. We also affirm the trial justice's decision that the area two feet beyond the evergreens belongs to Acampora. However, as will be discussed below, we uphold that part of the judgment on adverse possession grounds. See Ahlburn v. Clark, 728 A.2d 449, 452 (R.I.1999) (Although this Court will consider only those issues that the parties have properly raised and presented at trial    we can affirm a judgment on grounds not actually relied upon by the trial court to justify its ruling   .). A