Belotti v. . Bickhardt

New York Court of Appeals
228 N.Y. 296, 127 N.E. 239 (1920)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Successive periods of adverse possession by different individuals may be combined, or "tacked," to satisfy the statutory period, provided there is privity between the possessors. This privity can be established by evidence of the grantor's intent to transfer possession of the entire adversely held property, including any encroaching structures, even if the disputed portion is not described in the deed.

Facts:

In 1892, a predecessor of defendant Bickhardt, Van Schaick, erected a building on his lot that, due to a map error, encroached upon the adjoining lot, 'K', which was owned by a predecessor of plaintiff Belotti.
The encroachment consisted of a substantial structure covering a portion of Lot K measuring twelve feet in width and fifty-one feet in depth.
In December 1892, Van Schaick conveyed his property, including the encroaching building, to Gustave Riedel.
Riedel occupied the entire building, using it as a saloon, from 1892 until his death in 1898.
In 1897, Riedel raised the building and added an extension, which also encroached upon Lot K.
After Riedel's death, his devisees and heirs continued to occupy the entire premises uninterruptedly.
On August 16, 1906, Riedel's heirs conveyed the property to defendant Bickhardt. The deed's description did not include the encroaching portion of Lot K.
Bickhardt took possession of the entire building, including the encroaching portion, and used and rented it as a hotel.

Procedural Posture:

Belotti sued Bickhardt in the New York trial court, seeking to recover possession of the disputed land, damages, and a mandatory injunction for the removal of the encroaching building.
The trial court ruled in favor of Belotti, holding that Bickhardt could not tack the possession of his predecessors because the deed did not describe the disputed strip of land, thus breaking the privity.
Bickhardt, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment.
The Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the trial court's judgment in a divided decision without issuing an opinion.
Bickhardt, as appellant, then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.

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 the absence of a description of disputed land in a deed prevent a grantee from tacking their predecessor's period of adverse possession when evidence shows an intent to transfer possession of the entire property, including a substantial building encroaching on that disputed land?

Opinions:

Majority - Elkus, J.

No. The absence of a description of the disputed land in a deed does not defeat a claim of adverse possession if there is an unbroken chain of privity between successive possessors, which can be established by evidence of intent to transfer possession of the entire property. The court reasoned that tacking is permissible where there is a clear intent to transfer possession of the adversely held land along with the deeded property. Here, the existence of a substantial building that physically occupied the disputed land is powerful evidence of the grantors' intent to transfer possession of the building as a whole, not just the part on the land described in the deed. The court distinguished prior cases that disallowed tacking, noting they primarily involved vacant land where intent to transfer possession of unenclosed, undescribed parcels was not evident. Privity can be established by parol transfer of possession when the circumstances clearly indicate an intent to convey the whole occupied area.

Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the doctrine of tacking for adverse possession in New York. It establishes that privity does not depend solely on the written description in a deed but can be inferred from the parties' intent and the physical circumstances of the transfer. By focusing on the intent to transfer possession of a permanent, encroaching structure, the court made it easier for successive occupants to meet the continuity requirement for adverse possession, especially in cases of good-faith boundary mistakes. This precedent shifts the analysis from a rigid adherence to documental formalities to a more practical assessment of the reality of the property transfer, thereby providing a mechanism to settle long-standing, good-faith boundary disputes.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Belotti v. . Bickhardt (1920)

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