Court Opinion

ID: 9730283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:07:02.384172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:05.405705
License: Public Domain

On Reargument.
Per Curiam.
After our decision in the above case, the respondent Leonardo Francescone, Jr. ;by permission of the court presented a motion for reargument. In granting it we stated: “Such reargument shall be confined to the question of what effect, if any, the conveyance of June 1, 1950 has upon the competence of the evidence adduced to establish the adverse possession by complainant’s parents prior to that date.” Finocchiaro v. Francescone, 97 R. I. 371, 375, 198 A.2d 37, 39.
We considered this question to be sufficiently important to warrant reargument because the trial justice found: “* * * in this case we have no such conveyance of this parcel in question, we have no color of title whatsoever.” It is clear from the context in which this statement is made that the reference is to the fact that the deed of June 1, 1950 conveyed a parcel of land by metes and bounds to complainant which did not include the seven-foot strip of land that is the subject matter of the instant litigation.
This failure of the grantors to include the seven-foot strip within the metes and bounds description of the land conveyed to complainant by the deed of June 1, 1950 gave rise to concern on the part of this court, it being clear that the trial justice had found that the grantors had acquired title to such strip by adverse possession before the execution of that deed on the basis of evidence of an adverse user by them prior to that conveyance. The question is *377•whether his finding that title to the seven-foot- strip was in complainant on the basis of evidence of the grantors’ adverse use prior to conveyance constituted a violation of the parol evidence rule in that its effect was to- alter or add to the terms of the deed by parol.
Dick & Carty, Joseph E. Marran, Jr., for complainant.
Francis A. Manzi, for respondent.
After a careful consideration of the briefs and oral argument on reargument, it is our opinion that the respondent has not shown that such evidence was legally incompetent in that it violated the parol evidence rule.
Therefore, we see no necessity for changing our conclusion, and the cause is remanded to the superior court for further proceedings in accordance with the original opinion.