Carnevale v. Dupee
853 A.2d 1197 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claimant's use of land can be 'open and notorious' for the purposes of adverse possession even if the use is not visible from the true owner's adjacent property due to a natural obstruction. The law charges a true owner with knowledge of what is done openly on their land, focusing on whether the claimant's actions are consistent with that of a typical owner of similar property.
Facts:
- Joan L. Dupee and her predecessors in title, the McGraths, owned property adjacent to land owned by the Carnevales and Ronald Rodrigues.
- For a period exceeding ten years, Dupee and the McGraths maintained a disputed strip of land between the properties, believing it was their own.
- Their maintenance activities included mowing the lawn, clearing walking paths, and maintaining cow-fencing along what they considered their boundary.
- Dupee also posted 'No trespassing' signs in some areas on the disputed parcel.
- A dense thicket of bullbriars and other mature vegetation on the Carnevale and Rodrigues properties naturally obscured the view of Dupee's activities on the disputed strip.
- In 1991, after the bullbriars were cut back, Peter Carnevale's son climbed a tree and discovered that Dupee had been maintaining land beyond her record boundary line.
Procedural Posture:
- Peter and Rochelle Carnevale and Ronald Rodrigues filed a suit in Rhode Island Superior Court to quiet title to a strip of land.
- Joan Dupee filed a counterclaim asserting ownership of the land through adverse possession.
- Following a nonjury trial, the Superior Court entered judgment for the Carnevales and Rodrigues.
- Dupee, as appellant, appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
- In a prior decision (Carnevale I), the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the trial justice's findings were flawed.
- A second nonjury trial was held in Superior Court, focusing only on the adverse possession claim.
- The trial justice again found for the Carnevales and Rodrigues (appellees), ruling that Dupee's (appellant's) possession was not 'open and notorious' because it was not visible.
- Dupee appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court for a second time.
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 claimant's use of land fail to meet the 'open and notorious' requirement for adverse possession simply because their activities are not visible from the true owner's adjacent property due to a dense, natural vegetative barrier?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A claimant's use of property can be open and notorious for adverse possession purposes even if natural obstructions prevent the true owner from viewing the activity from their own parcel. The fact that land is inaccessible or not easily visible to the record owner is not conclusive evidence that a claimant's use was not open and notorious. The court reasoned that the ultimate test is whether the claimant acted toward the land as an average owner would, considering the land's nature. Citing its recent holding in Tavares v. Beck, the court affirmed that a true owner is chargeable with knowing what is done openly on their land, regardless of whether it can be observed from a road or property line. Here, Dupee's actions of mowing and maintaining fencing were consistent with typical ownership of rural land. The concealment was caused by dense vegetation, not by a deliberate act on Dupee's part, and she was under no additional duty to notify the true owners of her claim.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'open and notorious' element of adverse possession, particularly for rural or undeveloped land with natural visual barriers. It shifts the legal focus from what the true owner can physically see from their vantage point to the nature of the claimant's use of the disputed land. The ruling establishes that landowners have a duty to be aware of the state of their entire property and cannot rely on natural obstructions as a defense against an adverse possession claim. This precedent makes it harder for absentee or inattentive landowners to defeat such claims and strengthens the position of claimants whose use is consistent with ownership but not easily visible to neighbors.
