Cynthia Caluori v. Dexter Credit Union
79 A.3d 823 (2013)
Rule of Law:
A claimant's use of another's property can be considered "notorious" for a prescriptive easement claim if the use is open and consistent with how an owner would utilize similar property, even if that use is shared with the true owner and the public. A claimant's knowledge at the time of purchase that they do not hold title to the property does not, by itself, defeat the "hostile use" requirement.
Facts:
- In 1981, Cynthia Caluori and her husband purchased Lot 18 from Dorothy Feeney, who also owned the adjacent Lot 19.
- The deed explicitly excluded a paved driveway from the conveyance to the Caluoris, making that driveway area part of Lot 19.
- Lot 19 had been the site of a bank since at least 1971, and its patrons used the driveway.
- From 1981, Caluori's residential tenants on Lot 18 used the driveway on Lot 19 for access.
- In 1983, the Caluoris added a commercial building to Lot 18, and its tenants, employees, and customers also began using the driveway for access and turning.
- This use by Caluori, her tenants, and their invitees was continuous for over 20 years and occurred alongside use by bank patrons and the general public.
- In 2010, Dexter Credit Union purchased Lot 19 and developed plans to move the driveway and install landscaping that would block Caluori's access.
Procedural Posture:
- Cynthia Caluori filed a complaint in Superior Court (trial court) seeking a declaratory judgment for a prescriptive easement and an easement by implication over Dexter Credit Union's property.
- Dexter filed a counterclaim for trespass and to quiet title.
- The parties filed a stipulation dismissing some of Caluori's counts and all of Dexter's counterclaims.
- Following a three-day bench trial, the trial justice issued a written decision denying Caluori's claims for both types of easements.
- Final judgment was entered in favor of Dexter.
- Caluori, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the judgment 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 use of an adjacent driveway satisfy the "hostile" and "notorious" elements for a prescriptive easement when the landowner knew from the time of purchase that they did not own the driveway and the use was shared with the true owner's invitees and the general public?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Suttell
Yes, such use can satisfy the elements for a prescriptive easement. The trial court erred in finding the use was not hostile and not notorious. For hostility, a claimant’s knowledge of a superior title at the time of purchase is not dispositive and does not preclude a subsequent adverse claim; the trial court also improperly relied on facts not in evidence. For notoriety, an open use of a driveway consistent with how an owner would normally use it is sufficient to put the true owner on constructive notice, and this is not defeated by the fact that the use was shared with the owner or the public. In this case, the court found little distinction between an 'open' use and a 'notorious' use.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and arguably lowers the bar for establishing the "notorious" and "hostile" elements of a prescriptive easement in Rhode Island. It establishes that non-exclusive, shared use of a property like a driveway can still be notorious enough to put a reasonably diligent owner on notice. By separating a claimant's initial knowledge of title from the legal standard for hostile intent, the court reinforces the objective nature of the hostility test, focusing on the user's actions rather than their subjective belief about ownership. This precedent will likely make it easier for claimants to establish prescriptive easements in similar shared-use scenarios.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Cynthia Caluori v. Dexter Credit Union (2013)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"