Donnelly v. Cowsill
716 A.2d 742 (1998)
Rule of Law:
The approval of a subdivision plat by a plan commission does not constitute a public dedication of a way depicted thereon unless there is a clear and manifest intent by the landowner to offer the way for public use.
Facts:
- In 1928, Edith Keller conveyed a parcel of land to Oscar Schultz, reserving title to a forty-foot-wide strip of land on the western side of the parcel for access, which would later be known as Cowsill Lane.
- Schultz subsequently conveyed his remaining property, including his 'right, title and interest in and to that certain forty-foot way,' to Benjamin McCormick.
- In 1956, McCormick filed and received approval for a subdivision plan that delineated the forty-foot strip and labeled it 'way.'
- McCormick later conveyed his remaining property, including his interest in the 'way,' to Curry Associates, Inc. (Curry).
- In 1966, Curry conveyed the original Keller property and the forty-foot strip (Cowsill Lane) as a separate parcel to William and Barbara Cowsill, thereby transferring ownership of the lane itself.
- Kathleen Donnelly and the Baezas later acquired lots abutting the lane; Donnelly's deed included a right-of-way over the lane, which is her only means of access.
- In 1978, Donald and Solveig Anderson acquired a parcel on the opposite side of the lane; their deed described the lane as a boundary but granted no rights to use it.
- The Andersons created a small lot for themselves out of their larger parcel that had frontage only on Cowsill Lane and claimed a right of access through it, prompting the current dispute.
Procedural Posture:
- Kathleen Donnelly and Robert and Elaine Baeza (plaintiffs) filed an action to quiet title in the Superior Court against Donald and Solveig Anderson (defendants) and other surrounding property owners.
- Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment to confirm their rights in Cowsill Lane and an injunction to prevent the Andersons from using it.
- The case was tried before a justice of the Superior Court sitting without a jury.
- The trial justice found in favor of the plaintiffs, granting the requested relief and permanently enjoining the Andersons from using or trespassing on the lane.
- The Andersons (appellants) appealed the Superior Court's 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 the approval of a subdivision plat by a planning board automatically constitute a public dedication of a 'way' shown on the plat, absent a manifest intent by the landowner to dedicate the land for public use?
Opinions:
Majority - Goldberg, Justice.
No. The approval of a subdivision plat does not automatically dedicate a way for public use without a landowner's manifest intent to do so. Dedication of private property to the public is an exceptional method of transferring interest in property, requiring two distinct elements: (1) a manifest intent by the landowner to dedicate the land (an offer to dedicate), and (2) acceptance of that offer by the public. While a planning board's approval of a plat can serve as public acceptance, it cannot create the initial offer. Merely delineating a 'way' on a plat, especially for boundary purposes, is insufficient to conclusively establish the owner’s intent to offer the property for public dedication. The court found a complete absence of evidence that McCormick or his successors intended to dedicate Cowsill Lane for public use; in fact, the chain of title, which included a specific conveyance of the lane itself to the Cowsills, demonstrated it was to remain private. Because the lane was never dedicated to the public, and the Andersons had no rights to it by deed or prescription, they lack standing to challenge the plaintiffs' claim of adverse possession.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the requirements for statutory dedication of land, emphasizing that a landowner's intent to dedicate is a threshold factual question that cannot be presumed from the mere depiction of a way on a plat. It solidifies the principle that public dedication is a two-step process requiring both a clear offer from the owner and public acceptance. The ruling reinforces that courts must scrutinize the entire record, including the chain of title and other conveyances, to determine intent, rather than relying solely on the plat map. This precedent protects landowners from inadvertently dedicating private ways to public use and places a burden on those claiming dedication to prove the owner's 'manifest intent' with clear evidence.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Donnelly v. Cowsill (1998)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"