Paine v. Sexton
88 Mass. App. Ct. 389 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The operation of a commercial enterprise on wild or woodland, characterized by significant, permanent improvements and control over public access, can satisfy the open and notorious requirements for adverse possession without complete enclosure. Under the doctrine of color of title, such possession can extend to the entire area described in a deed, even if the deed references an assessor's map for its description.
Facts:
- Since approximately 1958, Robert L. Paine and his predecessors have operated a commercial campground on a 36-acre tract of predominantly woodland in Wellfleet.
- The Paines made substantial improvements to the land, including creating roadways, clearing campsites, building a house, two toilet facilities, and an office building.
- They seasonally placed picnic tables, fire rings, and campsite numbers on the campsites and controlled entry to the property by charging a fee and ousting non-payers.
- The Paines advertised the campground with signage and in local publications.
- They constructed a wall along the road frontage and some fencing with "no trespassing" signs, but these structures did not fully enclose the entire 36-acre property.
- The Paines maintained the areas between campsites in their natural, wooded state to provide privacy for campers.
- The Paines held seven deeds purporting to convey the property, which described the land using metes and bounds, references to abutting parcels, and references to assessors' maps.
- Since the 1960s, the Paines paid property taxes on the land.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs filed a petition in the Massachusetts Land Court seeking to register title to approximately 36 acres of land, asserting claims of record title and adverse possession.
- The defendants filed a response contesting the plaintiffs' claims.
- The Land Court conducted a trial on the adverse possession claim first and concluded that the plaintiffs' use of the property was sufficient.
- Subsequently, the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment on the color of title issue.
- The Land Court judge granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the color of title issue, resulting in a judgment for the plaintiffs.
- The defendants appealed the Land Court's judgment to the Massachusetts Appeals 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 the seasonal operation of a commercial campground on a large tract of woodland, which includes clearing campsites, constructing buildings, and controlling access, but lacks complete enclosure, constitute sufficient use to establish adverse possession over the entire property described in the deeds under the doctrine of color of title?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, J.
Yes. The seasonal operation of a commercial campground on woodland property is sufficient to establish adverse possession, and deeds referencing assessors' maps can establish color of title to extend this possession to the entire described property. The court reasoned that the traditional strict rule for adverse possession of woodland—requiring enclosure or cultivation—is simply an application of the general principle that the use must be sufficient to put the true owner on notice. Here, the plaintiffs' operation of a commercial campground, with its associated improvements, advertising, and access restrictions, was a use pronounced enough to place the record owners on notice of an adverse claim. Furthermore, under the doctrine of color of title, this established possession extends to the entire premises described in the plaintiffs' deeds. The court held that deeds containing metes and bounds descriptions are valid, and a supplemental reference to an assessor's map does not invalidate them; in fact, such maps can provide a definite and accurate description.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'open and notorious' element of adverse possession as applied to large tracts of wild or undeveloped land, signaling a flexible, context-specific approach. It establishes that the traditional requirements of complete enclosure or cultivation are not absolute prerequisites if other activities provide sufficient notice to the true owner. The ruling indicates that intensive, commercial use can serve as a substitute for physical barriers, thereby potentially lowering the bar for adverse possession claims on such properties. The case also reinforces the validity of using public records like assessors' maps to supplement property descriptions in deeds for the purpose of establishing color of title.
