Jarvis v. Gillespie
587 A.2d 981 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Municipally-owned land is not considered 'given to a public use' and is therefore not exempt from adverse possession claims if the municipality acquired it to satisfy a private debt, never dedicated it to any public purpose, and manifested no intent for future public use.
Facts:
- In 1935, the Town of Waterville acquired title to a 1.2-acre parcel from an estate to settle a debt for public assistance the town had provided to the deceased owner.
- In 1947, plaintiff purchased over 200 acres of land that surrounds the disputed parcel on three sides, with the fourth side bounded by a road.
- Between 1947 and 1986, plaintiff was the exclusive user of the parcel, engaging in activities such as grazing cattle, parking vehicles, staging a logging operation, storing wood, tapping maple trees, planting trees, cutting firewood, and posting 'No Trespassing' signs.
- During this same period, neither the Town of Waterville nor the public made any use of the parcel.
- On May 7, 1986, the Town of Waterville conveyed the parcel to defendant by quitclaim deed.
- Shortly after the conveyance, defendant entered the property and removed the 'No Trespassing' signs that plaintiff had posted.
- In response, plaintiff replaced the signs and constructed a wooden fence on the property.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action in the Lamoille Superior Court (trial court) to establish his ownership of the disputed parcel by adverse possession.
- Defendant contested the action, asserting as an affirmative defense that the land was exempt from adverse possession under 12 V.S.A. § 462 because it was given to a public use.
- The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, concluding he had established title by adverse possession and that the statutory exemption did not apply.
- Defendant (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Supreme Court of Vermont.
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 statute exempting lands 'given, granted, sequestered or appropriated to a public... use' from adverse possession claims apply to a parcel of land acquired by a municipality to settle a welfare-assistance debt and then left unused for fifty-one years before being sold to a private individual?
Opinions:
Majority - Allen, C.J.
No. The statutory exemption for lands given to a public use does not apply to this parcel because the Town of Waterville never dedicated it to such a use. First, the court affirmed that the plaintiff's actions satisfied the elements of adverse possession—open, notorious, hostile, and continuous use for the statutory period of fifteen years. The court reasoned that the claimant's acts must be evaluated in light of the nature of the land; plaintiff's use of the rural parcel for grazing, logging, and cutting firewood was consistent with how an average owner would act. Second, the court addressed the statutory exemption for public lands. It declined to adopt a standard that exempts all municipally-owned land, instead adopting a rebuttable presumption test from Connecticut. Under this test, municipal land is presumed to be for a public use, but a claimant can rebut this by showing the municipality has abandoned any plans for public use. Here, the plaintiff successfully rebutted the presumption because the Town acquired the parcel to settle a private debt, never used the property for any public purpose for fifty-one years, and manifested no intent for future public use by selling it to a private individual.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent in Vermont for claims of adverse possession against municipalities. It rejects a blanket immunity for all municipally-owned land and instead adopts a nuanced, fact-specific test focused on the municipality's intent and actions. By creating a rebuttable presumption of public use, the court balances the protection of genuine public lands with the principles of adverse possession that aim to settle land titles and encourage productive use. This ruling means municipalities cannot simply hold title to land indefinitely without purpose and remain immune from adverse possession; they must demonstrate some past, present, or intended future public use to invoke the statutory protection.
Unlock the full brief for Jarvis v. Gillespie