O'Connor v. Larocque
302 Conn. 562, 2011 Conn. LEXIS 433, 31 A.3d 1 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish title by adverse possession against a cotenant, the possessing cotenant must overcome a strong presumption by demonstrating through clear and convincing evidence an ouster with acts of such an unequivocal and distinctly hostile nature that the intent to disseize is unmistakable to the other cotenant. A mistaken belief of sole ownership negates the requisite intent to wrongfully dispossess a known cotenant.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, Theresa O'Connor, and the defendant, Dorothy Larocque, are sisters who inherited fractional interests in a vacant lot from their father who died intestate in 1971.
- In 1980, their mother, Doris Percoski, incorrectly believing she owned the entire lot, conveyed it to O'Connor via a quitclaim deed that transferred only her actual one-third interest.
- O'Connor, also mistakenly believing she had acquired full title, began paying all property taxes, maintaining liability insurance, mowing the grass, and occasionally allowing a town fair to use the lot for parking.
- In 1987, O'Connor learned that she did not have full title and that her sister, Larocque, held a one-sixth interest in the lot.
- O'Connor, through her attorney, asked Larocque to sign a quitclaim deed to relinquish her interest, which Larocque refused to do.
- After 1987, O'Connor continued to use and maintain the lot in the same manner as she had before discovering the cotenancy.
- The sisters had a bitter relationship and had not communicated for approximately 25 years.
Procedural Posture:
- On October 1, 2007, Theresa P. O'Connor sued Dorothy Larocque in Connecticut trial court, seeking to quiet title to a lot through adverse possession.
- Larocque filed a counterclaim seeking partition or sale of the property.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Larocque on O'Connor's separate equitable claim but allowed the adverse possession claim to proceed.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of O'Connor, concluding she had proven adverse possession and quieting title in her name.
- Larocque, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Appellate Court.
- The Supreme Court of Connecticut transferred the appeal to itself before the Appellate Court could hear the case.
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 cotenant who possesses a property under the mistaken belief of sole ownership, and whose subsequent actions consist of paying taxes, mowing, planting some trees, and allowing occasional public use, overcome the presumption against adverse possession and prove by clear and convincing evidence an ouster of the other cotenant?
Opinions:
Majority - Zarella, J.
No. A cotenant's actions, such as paying taxes and basic maintenance, are insufficient to overcome the strong presumption against adverse possession when those acts are consistent with the rights of a cotenant and not distinctly hostile. To establish the requisite intent for ouster, the possessing cotenant must have actual knowledge of the other's ownership interest. From 1980 to 1987, O'Connor could not have formed the necessary intent to dispossess Larocque because she mistakenly believed she was the sole owner. After learning of Larocque's interest in 1987, O'Connor's continued use of the property was not 'unequivocal' or 'distinctly hostile,' as her actions were consistent with the non-adverse use of a tenant in common. Larocque's refusal to sign the quitclaim deed in 1987 constituted an assertion of her ownership rights. The court rejected the argument that prior litigation between the sisters provided notice, as that litigation began in 1997, which is less than the fifteen-year statutory period required for an adverse possession claim.
Dissenting - Rogers, C. J.
Yes. The trial court's finding of adverse possession was supported by sufficient evidence and should have been affirmed. The majority failed to afford proper deference to the trial court's factual findings. Ouster could be inferred from the totality of the circumstances, including: 1) O'Connor took possession of the land in 1980 under color of title and with an exclusive claim of right, which lowers the evidentiary bar for ouster; 2) Larocque acquiesced for 27 years in O'Connor's exclusive use without seeking access or an accounting, creating a presumption of ouster; and 3) the sisters' bitter relationship and prior litigation, in which Larocque herself prevailed on an adverse possession claim under nearly identical facts, provided constructive notice of O'Connor's hostile claim. It is disingenuous for Larocque to argue that O'Connor's actions were insufficient for notice when Larocque had previously argued that such actions were sufficient in her own adverse possession claim against O'Connor.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the exceptionally high burden of proof for a cotenant to claim adverse possession against another cotenant in Connecticut. The court clarified that a mistaken belief of sole ownership negates the required intent to dispossess, establishing that a claimant must be aware of the cotenancy to form the necessary hostile intent for an ouster. It solidifies the principle that acts of possession common among cotenants, like paying taxes and basic maintenance, are legally 'equivocal' and insufficient to provide the 'clear and unmistakable' notice of hostile intent required to disseize a cotenant. This ruling strongly protects the property rights of non-possessing cotenants, particularly in family disputes, making it very difficult for one owner to extinguish another's interest through passive, long-term use.
