DelSesto v. Unknown Heirs of Lewis

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
754 A.2d 91 (2000)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A grant of summary judgment is inappropriate in a boundary dispute when genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the elements of adverse possession or the doctrine of acquiescence, such as the nature of land use and a party's awareness of an unrecorded boundary agreement.

Facts:

Originally, Winthrop Wordell owned two adjacent lots, Nos. 19 and 20. In 1964, he conveyed lot No. 19 to Janet Lewis and her then-husband, Joseph Lewis.
In June 1977, Wordell and Joseph Lewis orally agreed to realign their common boundary line to help Wordell's lot conform to new zoning ordinances.
Following their handshake agreement, Wordell and Joseph Lewis placed granite markers to demarcate the new boundary line, and Joseph Lewis later planted blueberry bushes along it.
Shortly thereafter in June 1977, Wordell conveyed lot No. 20 to Donald Crowther, the plaintiffs' predecessor in title. The recorded deed reflected the original boundary, not the new, orally-agreed upon one.
Crowther, and later Stephen and Nancy DelSesto who purchased lot No. 20 in 1986, permitted Wordell to continue mowing hay on the lot up to the new granite markers.
In 1990 or 1991, Nancy DelSesto planted a small garden in the disputed area created by the boundary realignment.
In 1994, Janet Lewis, by then the sole owner of lot No. 19, commissioned a property survey that showed the original deeded boundary line.
After receiving the survey, Janet Lewis removed the DelSestos' garden and erected a fence along the original surveyed line.

Procedural Posture:

Stephen and Nancy DelSesto filed an action in the Superior Court (trial court) to quiet title against Janet Lewis, claiming ownership of a disputed area through adverse possession or acquiescence.
The DelSestos amended their complaint to include claims of trespass.
Lewis filed a counterclaim for trespass and slander of title.
Lewis moved for summary judgment on her counterclaim and against the DelSestos' claims.
The trial justice granted Lewis's motion for summary judgment.
The DelSestos, as appellants, appealed the grant of summary 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 genuine issue of material fact exist regarding the elements of adverse possession and acquiescence, thereby making summary judgment for the record title holder inappropriate?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes. A grant of summary judgment is inappropriate because there are genuine issues of material fact that a fact-finder must resolve. The court identified two legal theories under which the DelSestos could claim title: adverse possession and the doctrine of acquiescence. To establish adverse possession, possession must be actual, open, notorious, hostile, under a claim of right, continuous, and exclusive for ten years. To establish title by acquiescence, a party must show a boundary marker existed and that the parties recognized it as the boundary for ten years. The record reveals disputed facts material to these claims, including who mowed the disputed property, the nature and extent of its use over the years, and whether Janet Lewis was aware of the land swap her ex-husband made or silently acquiesced to the new boundary marked by the granite stones. Because these facts are contested and are essential to determining the rightful owner, the case must proceed to trial.

Analysis:

This decision reaffirms the high standard for granting summary judgment, particularly in fact-intensive real property disputes involving adverse possession or acquiescence. It underscores that questions of historical land use, knowledge, and intent are typically within the province of a jury or fact-finder, not a judge reviewing a paper record. The case serves as a precedent against resolving boundary disputes via summary judgment where there is conflicting evidence about the parties' actions and awareness concerning an unrecorded boundary line. It reinforces the principle that long-standing conduct and recognition of a boundary can create triable issues of fact sufficient to overcome clear record title.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: DelSesto v. Unknown Heirs of Lewis (2000)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"