Lee v. Raymond

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
456 A.2d 1179 (1983)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To acquire title by adverse possession, a claimant's possession must be actual, open, notorious, hostile, under claim of right, continuous, and exclusive for the statutory period. The requirement of 'actual and continuous' possession is met if the claimant's use is consistent with the nature and character of the property, such as seasonal use for a summer property.

Facts:

William and Rachel Raymond and Robert and Margaret Lee owned adjacent properties on Block Island, a seasonal community.
The Lees purchased their property in 1956, and their seller indicated that their northern boundary was a drainage ditch.
The Raymonds had purchased their property in 1945, and their deed indicated their southern boundary was a stone wall located south of the drainage ditch.
The disputed parcel was a 1.3-acre open field located between the drainage ditch claimed by the Lees and the stone wall designated in the Raymonds' deed.
Beginning in 1958, the Lees used the disputed field for summer recreation, including camping, berry picking, horse riding, and boating on an adjacent pond.
The Lees periodically cleared brush from the field, hired a handyman to build a road across it in 1966, constructed a dock, and granted a utility easement through the field in 1964.
Mrs. Raymond had cultivated a garden on the parcel but abandoned it in 1950, six years before the Lees' purchase; thereafter, the Raymonds' only use of the field was to occasionally walk across it for social visits.
In 1975, a dispute arose when the Lees contracted with the state for a wildlife feed area on the parcel, and the Raymonds informed the state agent he was trespassing.

Procedural Posture:

Robert and Margaret Lee filed suit in the Superior Court to quiet title and enjoin the Raymonds from trespassing.
The Raymonds filed a counterclaim, also asserting ownership.
The trial justice, sitting without a jury, found that the deeds established the stone wall as the true boundary, but awarded title to the disputed parcel to the Lees under the doctrine of adverse possession.
The Raymonds (appellants) appealed the Superior Court's judgment to the state's highest court, where the Lees are the appellees.

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 claimant's seasonal but consistent use of a parcel of land for recreational purposes, building a road, and granting an easement, all under a mistaken belief of ownership, satisfy the elements of adverse possession?

Opinions:

Majority - Kelleher, Justice

Yes. A claimant's seasonal but consistent use of a parcel of land satisfies the elements of adverse possession when such use is typical for the character of the property. The elements of adverse possession are: actual, open, notorious, hostile, under claim of right, continuous, and exclusive for the ten-year statutory period. The Lees' possession was under a mistaken 'claim of right' based on their deed and their seller's representations. Their possession was 'hostile' because their assertion of dominion up to the visible line of the drainage ditch was inconsistent with the Raymonds' rights, regardless of their subjective intent. The 'actual' and 'continuous' requirements were met because their summer-only use was consistent with how owners of similar Block Island property would use their land; year-round occupation is not required. Finally, their possession was 'open, notorious, and exclusive' because their acts of clearing brush, building a road, and granting an easement provided notice to the Raymonds, who admitted awareness of these activities. The Raymonds' passive use of walking across the field was insufficient to defeat the Lees' claim of exclusive possession.

Analysis:

This case clarifies the application of the 'actual and continuous' elements of adverse possession to property that is typically used on a seasonal basis. It establishes that the nature of the claimant's use does not need to be constant but must be consistent with the type of use an ordinary owner would make of such property. The decision reinforces that 'hostility' is an objective standard based on the claimant's actions inconsistent with the true owner's rights, not a subjective state of mind requiring animosity. This precedent is significant for disputes involving vacation properties, where continuous, year-round occupation is uncommon.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Lee v. Raymond (1983)

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