Mendonca v. Cities Service Oil Co. of Pennsylvania
354 Mass. 323, 237 N.E.2d 16 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To acquire title by adverse possession, a claimant's possession must be continuous for the entire statutory period. An act of dominion by the record title owner, such as using the disputed land for a construction project, interrupts this continuity and defeats the adverse possession claim.
Facts:
- Since 1936, Cities Service Oil Company (defendant) has held record title to a parcel of land where it operated a gasoline station.
- The plaintiffs and their predecessors in title owned the adjacent lot, but their deeds never purported to convey the disputed strip of land.
- From 1936 until 1951, the defendant maintained a fence on its property, and the plaintiffs' predecessors used the strip of land between the fence and their actual property line for various purposes.
- In 1941, one of the plaintiffs' predecessors erected a chain link fence on one side of the strip.
- In 1951, the defendant undertook a major renovation of its gas station.
- During the renovation, the defendant's contractor used the disputed strip of land for a period of three to four weeks to store building materials and equipment.
- The person who owned the plaintiffs' property at that time did not protest the contractor's use of the strip.
- As part of the 1951 renovation, the defendant's contractor tore down the old fences and erected a new wooden fence.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs filed a bill in equity in the trial court to enjoin the defendant from entering the disputed land.
- The plaintiffs also recorded an affidavit in the registry of deeds claiming title by adverse possession.
- The defendant filed an answer seeking affirmative relief against the plaintiffs' claim.
- The trial court entered a decree finding that the plaintiffs had acquired title to the strip by adverse possession but denied an award for damages.
- The defendant appealed the trial court's adverse possession ruling, and the plaintiffs appealed the denial of damages, bringing the case before this appellate 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 record title owner's use of a disputed strip of land for several weeks to store construction materials during a renovation project interrupt the continuous possession required for an adverse possession claim by an adjacent landowner?
Opinions:
Majority - Kirk, J.
Yes, a record title owner's use of a disputed strip of land for several weeks interrupts the continuous possession required for an adverse possession claim. To acquire title through adverse possession, the claimant bears the burden of proving that their possession was actual, open, continuous, and under a claim of right for the entire statutory period of twenty years. The defendant's use of the disputed strip in 1951 for storing materials during its station's renovation constituted an act of dominion consistent with its record title. This act broke the requisite continuity of any adverse use by the plaintiffs' predecessors before twenty years had elapsed. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot prove continuous possession for the required statutory period, and their claim for adverse possession fails.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high burden of proof on a party claiming title through adverse possession, specifically regarding the element of continuous use. It clarifies that a record owner's interruption does not need to be a formal legal action; a temporary but significant physical reassertion of control over the land is sufficient to break the continuity of an adverse claim. This protects record titleholders by allowing them to defeat a claim by demonstrating even sporadic, but meaningful, acts of ownership during the statutory period. The ruling underscores that any lapse in the claimant's exclusive and continuous possession resets the statutory clock.
