Hammond v. Baker
916 N.Y.S.2d 702, 81 A.D.3d 1288 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an adverse possession claim governed by pre-2008 New York law, actions such as erecting structures, building walls, and regularly maintaining a lawn are sufficient to establish open, notorious, and continuous use. Title that has vested through adverse possession cannot be retroactively disturbed by subsequent statutory amendments that redefine such possessory acts as permissive.
Facts:
- Gordon Baker and Esther Baker purchased a parcel of land.
- Plaintiffs, owners of the adjacent property, began using a portion of the Bakers' land (the 'disputed property').
- Over a period of at least 10 years, the plaintiffs' actions on the disputed property included erecting a shed, constructing and reconfiguring a stone wall, and refurbishing a swing set.
- During this same period, plaintiffs also planted, fertilized, and regularly mowed the grass on the disputed property.
- A hedgerow existed near the property line, which the Bakers claimed obscured their view of the plaintiffs' activities.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed an action to quiet title by adverse possession against defendants Gordon Baker and Esther Baker in the Supreme Court, Ontario County, the state's trial-level court of first instance.
- The case was decided in a bench trial, where the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding them a portion of the defendants' land.
- An amended order reflecting this judgment was entered.
- The defendants, as appellants, appealed the amended order to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division.
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 plaintiff's use of a portion of a defendant's land—by erecting a shed, building a stone wall, and regularly mowing the lawn for over ten years—satisfy the 'open and notorious' and 'usually cultivated or improved' elements for an adverse possession claim under the New York law in effect prior to the 2008 amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Memorandum Opinion
Yes. The plaintiffs' use of the land satisfied the elements for an adverse possession claim under the controlling prior law. The court found that the plaintiffs' various possessory acts, such as erecting a shed, building a stone wall, and performing regular lawn maintenance, were sufficient to establish that their possession was open and notorious. These activities were significant enough that even a 'casual inspection' by the record owner would have revealed the plaintiffs' occupation and use of the disputed property, regardless of the presence of a hedgerow. Because the plaintiffs' possession was also actual, exclusive, and continuous for the required 10-year period, a presumption of hostility arose, which the defendants failed to rebut by focusing incorrectly on the plaintiffs' state of mind rather than their actions. Critically, the court applied the version of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) in effect before the 2008 amendments, holding that title vested by adverse possession cannot be retroactively divested by newly enacted legislation that re-characterizes formerly adverse acts as 'permissive.' Under that prior statute, the plaintiffs' actions met the 'usually cultivated or improved' standard, as their use was consistent with the nature of the property.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that property rights vested through adverse possession are protected from subsequent, retroactive legislative changes. It clarifies that the 2008 amendments to New York's RPAPL—which deemed acts like lawn mowing to be permissive—do not apply to claims that matured before the law was changed. The case reinforces the traditional, objective standard for adverse possession, emphasizing the claimant's visible actions on the land over their subjective knowledge of property lines from deeds or surveys. This provides stability and finality for property titles established under long-standing common law and prior statutory standards.
