Court Opinion

ID: 9785235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:11:29.130621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:12.910876
License: Public Domain

Justice FLAHERTY,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the holding of the majority in this case. Before setting forth my reasons for doing so, however, I take this opportunity to express my approval of the Court’s scholarly opinion with respect to the origin and philosophy underpinning the doctrine of adverse possession. In summary, I agree with the majority’s observations about the efficacy of adverse possession in a modern world. The doctrine is a legal anachronism reminiscent of a time when landowners lived on or near their land and thus could observe encroachments on their property. Also, it is certainly worth noting that during the period when the adverse-possession doctrine developed, our society believed that it was in the public interest that land be used productively rather than being allowed to lie fallow. Neither of those situations is the case at present in our more mobile society. However, adverse possession remains the law in this state until the Legislature sees fit to change it.
A
The 1997 Letter
Simply put, I do not agree that the correspondence between plaintiff and defendant in which plaintiff offers to purchase defendant’s interest in lot 19 is the smoking gun the majority perceives it to be. As is clear from a fair reading of plaintiffs testimony, she believed that she owned the property as a result of her longtime use of and dominion over it. But her testimony also demonstrates that she drew a crisp distinction between whatever ownership rights she may have acquired and record title, which she recognized continued to reside in the Morrows. In my opinion, the trial justice correctly found that the “fact that the plaintiff beginning in 1997 inquired as to the Morrow’s willingness to consider a sale of the lot to her may certainly show that she was aware of the Morrow’s record title. That alone, however, does not negate her claim of right.” In Tavares v. Beck, 814 A.2d 346, 351 (R.I.2003), we held that the trial justice improperly factored a party’s subjective knowledge into a claim-of-right analysis. In that case, we clarified that “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 *96premises in a manner adverse to the owner of record.” Id. at 351-52. Further, we held that “[t]his remains true even in a situation in which the claimants know that they do not hold record title to the property in question * * Id. at 352. Such is the case here. Therefore, the 1997 letter was not a “silver bullet,” but simply another piece of evidence that should have been, and properly was, considered by the trial justice.
Even if that letter were as significant as the majority contends, there is no doubt that it was sent after the statutory period had run. It is beyond dispute that plaintiffs correspondence could not serve to divest her of title if she had already acquired it by adverse possession. Rather, as this Court has discussed about the elements of exclusivity and claim of right, “in order for a defendant to successfully defend against an adverse possession claim of disputed land, ‘there would have to be evidence indicating that the defendants or others had made improvements to the land or, at the very least, had used the land in a more significant fashion than merely walking across it.’ ” Anthony v. Searle, 681 A.2d 892, 898 (R.I.1996) (quoting Gammons v. Caswell, 447 A.2d 361, 368 (R.I.1982)). There certainly was credible evidence for the trial justice to find that plaintiff had used the property as her own for well over twenty years before she corresponded with Mr. Morrow in 1997. Further, there was a stark absence of evidence that the Morrows “used the land in a more significant fashion than merely walking across it.” Id. There is, in my opinion, ample support for this finding in the record, and the trial justice’s finding is not clearly wrong.
B
The Factual Findings
Likewise, it is my view that there is sufficient evidence in the record that plaintiffs use of the property satisfied the statutory requirements of actual, open, notorious and hostile use for a period of at least ten years. As we have said in numerous cases, to establish the requisite hostility, 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].’ ” Tavares, 814 A.2d at 351 (quoting 16 Powell on Real Property, § 91.05[1] at 91-23 (2000)). Similarly, to satisfy the requirement of open and notorious use, a claimant must demonstrate that “the use to which the land is put must be similar to that which would ordinarily be made by owners of similarly situated real estate.” Id. at 352 (citing Sherman v. Goloskie, 95 R.I. 457, 466, 188 A.2d 79, 84 (1963)). Furthermore, it is appropriate for the trial court to “tak[e] properly into account the geophysical nature of [the] land.” Carnevale v. Dupee, 853 A.2d 1197, 1201 (R.I.2004) (quoting Anthony, 681 A.2d at 898).
The majority makes much of the fact that the plaintiffs use of the land was somewhat sporadic and seasonal in nature. However, this is consistent with how owners of a vacant lot adjoining a home in a beach area of the state would use this type of property. To this point our Court has said, “[y]ear-round occupation is not required to prove actual and continuous possession.” Lee v. Raymond, 456 A.2d 1179, 1183 (R.I.1983). And, this Court also has held “that in determining whether there has been actual possession of property, there must be considered its character and locality, and the uses and purposes for which it is naturally adapted * * Sherman, 95 R.I. at 466, 188 A.2d at 84 (quoting Goen v. Sansbury, 219 Md. 289, 149 A.2d 17, 21-22 (1959)). There was *97uncontradicted testimony that the plaintiff cut the grass, planted flowers, improved the flower beds, and entertained on the property. This is entirely compatible with the type of use that would be expected of the owner of unimproved land. Moreover, this Court repeatedly has made the statement that “[c]ultivating land, planting trees, and making other improvements in such a manner as is usual for comparable land have been successfully relied on as proof of the required possession.” Acampora v. Pearson, 899 A.2d 459, 467 (R.I.2006) (quoting Anthony, 681 A.2d at 898).
I realize that because he discounted the legal effect of the 1997 letter from the plaintiff to the defendant inquiring about a possible sale of the property, the trial justice referred to some improvements that were made after the letter was sent. But, even discounting that consideration, the trial justice found “overwhelming evidence” that the plaintiff had exercised dominion over lot 19 as an owner would for well in excess of ten years.9 Viewing this case through the prism of our deferential standard of review, I am unable to conclude that the trial justice was clearly wrong when he found that the plaintiffs use of that land for a period exceeding two decades met the legal requirements to establish that she had acquired lot 19 by adverse possession. I therefore would affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

. It is true that the trial justice did not make use of the terms "strict proof” or "clear and convincing evidence” in his decision, but to me, evidence that is found to be overwhelming” easily surpasses that criteria.