Cahill v. Morrow
11 A.3d 82 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An adverse possession claimant's unsolicited offer to purchase the property from the record owner constitutes an acknowledgment of the owner's superior title, which interrupts the hostile possession and claim of right required for adverse possession and resets the statutory period.
Facts:
- In 1969, Margaret Morrow's husband, George Morrow, purchased Lot 19, an undeveloped parcel of land in South Kingstown, Rhode Island.
- The Morrows paid property taxes on Lot 19 but did not improve or maintain it, using it only occasionally for their children to play on during summer vacations until around 1985.
- In 1971, Melanie Cahill's mother purchased the adjacent Lot 20, and beginning that year, Cahill and her family began using and maintaining Lot 19.
- After becoming the sole owner of Lot 20 in 1977, Cahill continuously used Lot 19 as if it were her own, mowing the grass, planting flowers and trees, placing furniture, and hosting annual parties on the property.
- On July 22, 1997, after 26 years of using the property, Cahill wrote a letter to George Morrow expressing her interest in purchasing Lot 19 from him. She received no response.
- In 2002, Cahill made two additional inquiries to George Morrow's sisters about whether he would be interested in selling Lot 19, again receiving no response.
- In December 2005, Cahill noticed heavy machinery and test pits on Lot 19, indicating the Morrows intended to use the property.
Procedural Posture:
- Melanie B. Cahill filed a civil action against Margaret P. Morrow in Washington County Superior Court (trial court), seeking a declaration of ownership of Lot 19 by adverse possession.
- Following a bench trial, the trial justice found in favor of Cahill, vesting fee simple title in her.
- Morrow, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Rhode Island Supreme Court (highest court).
- Initially, a four-justice panel of the Supreme Court was evenly divided, which resulted in an affirmation of the trial court's judgment.
- Morrow successfully moved for reargument before the full five-justice 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 an adverse possession claimant's offer to purchase the property from the record owner interrupt the claimant's hostile possession and claim of right, thereby stopping the statutory ten-year period from running?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Indeglia
Yes. An offer to purchase property from the record owner is an objective manifestation that acknowledges the owner's superior title, which interrupts the continuity of hostile possession and claim of right required for an adverse possession claim. Such an offer, when not made to settle a pre-existing dispute, halts the accrual of the statutory period. The court reasoned that hostility requires a denial of the owner's title. Cahill's 1997 letter did not deny George Morrow's title; rather, it was an outward declaration of its viability and her subservient interest. This distinguishes the case from situations where a claimant merely has subjective knowledge they are not the title owner but continues to act adversely. Cahill's letter was an objective act recognizing superior title, which terminated the running of the statutory period, requiring any subsequent adverse use to start the clock anew. Furthermore, an offer to purchase made even after the statutory period has allegedly run is still relevant evidence for a fact-finder to consider when determining the nature of the claimant's possession during the statutory period.
Dissenting - Justice Flaherty
No. An offer to purchase does not necessarily negate a claim of right, as it can simply be an acknowledgment of the record title, not a concession of ownership rights acquired through long-term use. The dissent argued that the majority placed too much weight on the 1997 letter. Citing Tavares, the focus should be on the claimant's objective acts of ownership over the property, not on their knowledge of who holds record title. Cahill's decades of using the property as her own were sufficient objective acts. Moreover, the dissent contended that the ten-year statutory period had already run by 1997, meaning title had likely already vested in Cahill and could not be divested by a subsequent offer to purchase. Therefore, the letter was just one piece of evidence the trial court properly considered.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'hostility' and 'claim of right' elements of adverse possession in Rhode Island, establishing a bright-line rule that an unsolicited offer to purchase disputed property interrupts an adverse possession claim. The ruling makes it more difficult for adverse possessors to succeed, as it penalizes attempts to resolve the situation by purchasing the land from the record owner. The court's distinction between a claimant's subjective knowledge and their objective manifestations to the owner provides a crucial framework for future cases and reflects a judicial preference for protecting record title holders over claimants.
