Gammons v. Caswell

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
447 A.2d 361 (1982)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A private right of way over a street created by the sale of lots referencing a recorded plat map is extinguishable by a valid claim of adverse possession if the incipient dedication of that street was never accepted by the public.

Facts:

In 1873, the Conanicut Land Company recorded a plat plan for a residential subdivision called 'Conanicut Park,' which included numerous lots and designated streets, including 'Winona Street.'
The planned development was never completed, and the area designated as 'Winona Street' remained an undeveloped, overgrown parcel of land with no physical evidence of a street.
In 1959, Elwin T. Gammons acquired property adjacent to the paper 'Winona Street' and believed his property extended to a privet hedge located on the other side of the disputed parcel.
Beginning in 1959, Gammons began clearing, cultivating, planting trees and gardens, and maintaining the land designated as 'Winona Street,' treating it as an extension of his own yard.
Eugene and Marie Liberati own lots within the Conanicut Park plat that do not have direct water frontage.
The Liberatis believed they had a private right of way over 'Winona Street' to access Narragansett Bay and occasionally walked across the disputed area.
The incipient dedication of 'Winona Street' was never formally accepted by the town of Jamestown, nor was it ever accepted through general public use.

Procedural Posture:

Elwin T. Gammons filed a quiet title action in the Rhode Island Superior Court, claiming ownership of 'Winona Street' by adverse possession.
The defendants, Eugene and Marie Liberati, filed an answer and a motion for a more definite statement, which the court denied.
The Superior Court held a bench trial (trial before a judge without a jury).
The trial justice found in favor of Gammons, ruling that he had acquired title by adverse possession and entered a judgment quieting title in his name.
The Liberatis, as 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 a landowner's actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive use of an unaccepted 'paper street' for the statutory period extinguish the private right of way held by other lot owners in the subdivision?

Opinions:

Majority - Shea, Justice.

Yes. A private right of way over an unaccepted paper street can be extinguished by adverse possession. While recording a plat and selling lots creates an incipient dedication of streets, this dedication must be accepted by the public to become a public highway. Where there has been no acceptance, title to the street can be acquired by adverse possession. The court found that Gammons' actions of clearing, cultivating, and improving the land were actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive for the statutory ten-year period. Citing Parrillo v. Riccitelli, the court held that such adverse possession extinguishes not only the public's unexercised right but also the private easement rights of other lot owners in the plat. The occasional use by the Liberatis, which amounted to merely walking across the property, was insufficient to interrupt the continuous and exclusive nature of Gammons' possessory acts.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies that private easements created by reference to a subdivision plat are not absolute and can be extinguished through adverse possession of the servient land. It confirms that the standard for extinguishing such an easement is the same as for acquiring title to any other property, provided the underlying land was never accepted as a public right of way. This precedent is significant for resolving title disputes in older, undeveloped subdivisions with 'paper streets,' providing a mechanism to clear title and align legal ownership with long-standing, real-world use of the land.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Gammons v. Caswell (1982)

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

Premium Feature