Brand v. Prince
324 N.E.2d 314, 364 N.Y.S.2d 826, 35 N.Y.2d 634 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Successive periods of adverse possession over property not included in a deed's description may be combined, or 'tacked,' to satisfy the statutory period if the evidence shows the prior adverse possessor intended to and actually did transfer possession of the undescribed portion along with the deeded land.
Facts:
- The plaintiff and defendant own adjoining farm lands separated by a disputed 10-acre parcel.
- From approximately 1945 to 1961, the plaintiff's predecessors in interest continuously used the 10-acre parcel for farming.
- In 1956, when the plaintiff's predecessors purchased their farm, the boundary lines pointed out to them by the seller included the disputed 10 acres.
- The plaintiff purchased the farm from these predecessors in 1961.
- After the purchase, the plaintiff posted the 10-acre parcel, rented it to a hunting club, and rented a portion for pasturage and haying.
- There was evidence that the disputed parcel was fenced and substantially enclosed during the periods of use by both the plaintiff and his predecessors.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff initiated an action in the County Court to establish title to the 10-acre parcel.
- The County Court, serving as the trial court, held a non-jury trial and entered a judgment finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish title by adverse possession.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the plaintiff had established title by adverse possession.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed the Appellate Division's order to the Court of Appeals, 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:
May a claimant seeking title by adverse possession tack their period of possession onto that of their predecessor in interest to satisfy the statutory period, where the disputed property is contiguous to but not included in the description of the land in the deed?
Opinions:
Majority - Jasen, J.
Yes. A claimant may tack their adverse possession to that of a predecessor where the disputed parcel is omitted from the deed description. Successive adverse possessions of contiguous property can be tacked if it appears that the adverse possessor intended to and actually turned over possession of the undescribed part with the portion of the land included in the deed. The court found that the common-law requirements for adverse possession—actual, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous possession—were satisfied by the combined use of the plaintiff and his predecessors. Because possessory title is an incident of possession itself, the transfer of possession, even by parol (orally), is sufficient to transfer the possessory interest. The circumstances of the sale to the plaintiff were entirely consistent with a finding that his predecessors intended to and did turn over their possessory interest in the 10-acre parcel, making the tacking proper.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the doctrine of tacking in adverse possession, particularly in the common scenario where a deed fails to describe a contiguous area that has been consistently possessed by the seller. The decision emphasizes a practical, rather than a strictly formalistic, approach by focusing on the possessor's intent to transfer control of the disputed land. This precedent allows courts to look beyond the four corners of a deed to the reality of the land transfer, thereby protecting the reliance interests of successive possessors and promoting the policy of quieting title based on long-standing possession.
