DeCosta v. DeCosta
819 A.2d 1261 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of acquiescence, when adjoining landowners treat an observable physical marker as the boundary line between their properties for the statutory period of ten years, that marker becomes the legal boundary, even if the initial use was permissive or by mutual agreement.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Frederick R. DeCosta and defendant Joseph DeCosta are brothers who own adjoining properties.
- In 1969, Joseph DeCosta planted a hedgerow near what the parties considered the boundary line.
- For over two decades, from 1969 until 1991, both families treated the hedgerow as the actual boundary between their parcels.
- During this amicable period, the parties jointly maintained both sides of the hedgerow.
- By 1991, the brothers' relationship deteriorated due to disagreements over the hedgerow's maintenance.
- In 1992, Joseph DeCosta removed a portion of the hedgerow and erected a chain-link fence that encroached even further onto Frederick DeCosta's property.
- A survey commissioned by Frederick DeCosta later confirmed that both the original hedgerow and the new fence were located approximately two feet inside his property line.
Procedural Posture:
- Frederick R. and Helen C. DeCosta (plaintiffs) filed an action for trespass and ejectment against Joseph and Mary DeCosta (defendants) in the Superior Court (trial court).
- The defendants filed a counterclaim asserting ownership by adverse possession and the doctrine of acquiescence.
- The trial justice found in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that the surveyed line was the correct boundary and ordering the defendants to remove the hedge and fence.
- The trial justice denied the defendants' counterclaim, finding that the elements of hostility and exclusivity required for adverse possession were not met.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island (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 doctrine of acquiescence establish a hedgerow as the legal boundary between two parcels of land when the adjoining owners have treated it as the boundary for the statutory period, even if the hedgerow was initially planted and maintained by mutual agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. The doctrine of acquiescence establishes the hedgerow as the legal boundary because the parties recognized it as such for the statutory period. The court reasoned that the placement of the hedgerow in 1969 served as the line of demarcation, and the plaintiffs' assent to its location for over twenty years was sufficient to trigger the doctrine. This doctrine applies even if the initial use was permissive and shared, which distinguishes it from adverse possession that requires hostility and exclusivity. The court cited precedent like DelSesto v. Lewis, holding that when a boundary marker is jointly agreed to or recognized for the requisite number of years, parties are precluded from later claiming it is not the true boundary. However, the chain-link fence, erected in 1992, had not been in place for the ten-year statutory period and was therefore an encroachment that had to be removed.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the important distinction between the doctrine of acquiescence and adverse possession in boundary disputes. It establishes that a boundary can be legally redefined without the element of hostility, provided there is an observable marker that both parties recognize as the boundary for the statutory period. This decision lowers the evidentiary burden for claimants who relied on long-standing, mutually-accepted boundaries, as they do not need to prove their use was exclusive or hostile. It solidifies the principle that prolonged, shared recognition of a physical boundary line can override the property lines described in a formal deed or survey.
