Martineau v. King

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
120 R.I. 265, 386 A.2d 1117 (1978)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When possession of a property begins with the owner's permission, it is presumed to remain permissive and cannot ripen into title by adverse possession unless the possessor performs an affirmative act that provides clear and unequivocal notice to the true owner of a hostile claim of ownership.

Facts:

In 1936, Nora King acquired record title to a tract of land, though her boyfriend Charles King and his brother Fred may have paid for it.
Nora, Charles, Fred, and a third brother, Frank King, all moved onto the property and lived together in a dwelling built by Charles and Fred.
This cohabitation was permissive, and they all resided there amicably until Nora's death in 1946.
After Nora died, Charles and Fred King continued to live in the main residence on the property.
Around 1951, Frank King constructed a second dwelling on the property and lived there.
Charles died in 1959, and Fred died in 1968. After Fred's death, Frank moved to Florida.
Nora King's heirs-at-law, the plaintiffs, were unaware of their ownership interest in the property until 1968.

Procedural Posture:

In December 1969, the heirs of Nora Bessette (plaintiffs) filed an action for trespass and ejectment against Frank King and the estate of Fred King (defendants) in the Sixth Division District Court.
Defendants filed a defense and counterclaim asserting they had acquired title to the property through adverse possession.
The case was removed by agreement to the Superior Court for trial.
Following a bench trial, the trial justice entered judgment for the plaintiffs on their complaint and on the defendants' counterclaim.
The defendants (appellants) appealed the Superior Court's judgment to the state's highest court.

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 person's continued, long-term occupation of a property, which began with the owner's permission, ripen into title by adverse possession without a clear and affirmative act repudiating the true owner's title and asserting a hostile claim?

Opinions:

Majority - Joslin, J.

No. Possession that begins as permissive is presumed to continue as permissive and does not become hostile for the purposes of adverse possession without an affirmative act that puts the true owner on notice of a hostile claim. The King brothers' original entry onto the land was with Nora's permission. Therefore, a presumption arose that their continued possession after her death remained permissive. To overcome this presumption, the defendants needed to show an affirmative act that constituted a repudiation or disclaimer of the true owners' title. The court found that mere continued occupancy and payment of taxes were insufficient to convert permissive use into a hostile claim. While Frank King's construction of a second dwelling in 1951 might have been such an act, his own testimony indicated he made no claim of ownership until after Charles' death in 1959. Because he left the property in 1968 or 1969, he did not meet the 10-year statutory period required for his hostile possession to ripen into title.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the legal principle that permissive use of property is fundamentally different from hostile possession and cannot be converted into the latter without a clear, overt act. It establishes a high evidentiary bar for claimants who initially entered land with permission, requiring them to demonstrate an explicit repudiation of the owner's title to start the adverse possession clock. This protects landowners, particularly in informal family or cohabitation arrangements, from losing their property through the long-term, passive occupancy of another. The case clarifies that actions like paying taxes or mere possession are ambiguous and insufficient to rebut the strong presumption of continued permissive use.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Martineau v. King (1978)

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