Anthony v. Searle

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
681 A.2d 892 (1996)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To establish title by adverse possession, a claimant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that their possession of the land was actual, open, notorious, hostile, under claim of right, continuous, and exclusive for the statutory period of ten years.

Facts:

Donald Searle purchased lot No. 583 in Jamestown, Rhode Island, in December 1980.
Quentin Anthony purchased the abutting lot No. 739 on May 21, 1981, but was granted access to the property by the previous owners in March 1981.
Beginning in the spring of 1981, Anthony established what he believed was his northern boundary line and began to cultivate and maintain a strip of land that was actually part of Searle's property.
From 1981 to 1991, Anthony consistently used this disputed land by planting and maintaining a lawn, growing tomatoes, planting a strawberry patch, constructing two cold frames for seedlings, and erecting and maintaining a rabbit hutch.
Anthony's use and cultivation of the disputed area were open and visible to his neighbors, including the Searles.
In late July 1991, Searle's parents, acting on his behalf and relying on a professional survey, hired workers to bulldoze the disputed strip of land to prepare for the construction of a garage.
The workers destroyed Anthony's plantings, garden, and removed the rabbit hutch.
On August 2, 1991, a backhoe began excavating the disputed land for the garage foundation.

Procedural Posture:

Quentin Anthony (plaintiff) sued Donald Searle (defendant) in Newport County Superior Court (trial court) for injunctive relief and damages after Searle's agents began constructing a garage on the disputed property.
The trial court issued a temporary restraining order halting construction.
Searle filed an answer and a counterclaim alleging trespass and waste.
Following a bench trial, the trial justice found that Anthony had acquired title to the disputed land through adverse possession but denied his request for damages, and dismissed Searle's counterclaim.
Before a final judgment was formally entered, Searle appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
The Supreme Court remanded the case for entry of a final judgment.
After the judgment was entered, Anthony filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the court incorrectly determined the boundary of the adversely possessed land.
The trial justice denied Anthony's motion for a new trial.
Both Anthony and Searle appealed to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a landowner's continuous cultivation and use of an adjacent strip of a neighbor's property for ten years, under the mistaken belief that it is his own, satisfy the elements of adverse possession?

Opinions:

Majority - Bourcier, Justice

Yes. A landowner who continuously cultivates and uses an adjacent strip of property for ten years under a mistaken claim of right satisfies the elements of adverse possession. The court found that Anthony's possession was actual, open, notorious, hostile, under claim of right, continuous, and exclusive for the statutory ten-year period. The court's reasoning focused on the principle that the ultimate test is whether the claimant acted toward the land as an average owner would. Anthony's activities—mowing the lawn, planting gardens, building a rabbit hutch, and constructing cold frames—were consistent with how an owner would typically use residential land. His possession was 'hostile' because he occupied the land up to a visible line under a claim of right, regardless of the true boundary. The use was open and notorious, putting the true owner on notice of his claim, and it was continuous and exclusive for over a decade, from May 1981 until July 1991.

Analysis:

This case provides a clear application of the well-established doctrine of adverse possession in the context of a residential boundary dispute. It reinforces that a claimant's mistaken belief of ownership (a 'claim of right') is sufficient to satisfy the hostility element, as the possession is adverse to the true owner's title. The decision underscores that ordinary, domestic use of land, such as gardening and lawn maintenance, can fulfill the 'actual' and 'open and notorious' possession requirements. For future cases, it serves as a strong precedent that consistent, visible use typical of an average landowner is compelling evidence to support a claim of adverse possession, even without major structures or enclosures.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Anthony v. Searle (1996)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature