Picerne v. Sylvestre
122 R.I. 85, 404 A.2d 476 (1979)
Rule of Law:
When a former property owner's possession becomes permissive by statute following a tax sale, they cannot establish title by adverse possession unless they perform an affirmative act that provides clear notice to the new owner of a hostile claim, and this hostile possession continues for the entire statutory period.
Facts:
- In May 1951, Roland and Elizabeth Sylvestre purchased a home at 83 Packard Street in Cranston, Rhode Island.
- In 1957, the Sylvestres mortgaged the property to Roland's brother, Norman.
- On April 26, 1960, due to unpaid property taxes, the City of Cranston sold the Sylvestres' property to Ettore C. Picerne at a tax sale.
- The Sylvestres continued to live in the house after the sale, claiming they were unaware of it and believed the mortgagee was paying the taxes.
- Between May 1961 and May 1971, the Sylvestres performed routine maintenance such as mowing the lawn and painting the interior.
- During this period, they also made several significant improvements: they painted the exterior in 1964 and 1968, installed aluminum combination windows in 1965, and replaced the front stairs around 1969 or 1970.
Procedural Posture:
- In October 1971, Ettore C. Picerne filed a petition in Rhode Island Superior Court to foreclose the Sylvestres' right to redeem property he had purchased at a tax sale.
- The Sylvestres answered, asserting the defense of adverse possession.
- In June 1972, the Superior Court trial justice ruled that the defense of adverse possession was not available in such a proceeding.
- The Sylvestres appealed to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, where a four-member court was evenly divided.
- The Supreme Court granted the Sylvestres' motion for reargument before the full court.
- The full Supreme Court held that the Sylvestres were entitled to present evidence on their adverse possession claim and remanded the case to the Superior Court.
- On remand, a different Superior Court justice heard the evidence and entered a judgment in favor of the Sylvestres, finding they had acquired title by adverse possession.
- Picerne, as the petitioner, appealed that judgment to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
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 former property owner whose possession is statutorily permissive for one year after a tax sale establish the requisite 10-year period of hostile adverse possession against the tax-sale purchaser by continuing to reside on and perform routine maintenance and periodic major repairs on the property?
Opinions:
Majority - Kelleher, J.
No. A former property owner does not establish the requisite 10-year period of hostile adverse possession by continuing to reside on and maintain the property because their initial possession after a tax sale is permissive by statute, and routine maintenance does not constitute a hostile act sufficient to put the new owner on notice. To convert permissive possession into a hostile one, the claimant must perform an affirmative act that demonstrates a claim of ownership, and the statutory period for adverse possession only begins at the time of that act. Under Rhode Island statute, a delinquent taxpayer's possession is permissive for the first year after a tax sale. Therefore, the Sylvestres needed to demonstrate a change from permissive to hostile possession. The court found that routine acts like mowing the lawn were insufficient. The first potential 'affirmative act' of hostility was painting the house's exterior in 1964, three years after the statutory 10-year period claimed by the Sylvestres began in May 1961. Because this hostile act did not occur at the beginning of the claimed 10-year period, the Sylvestres failed to prove the requisite continuous decade of hostile possession required to acquire title.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high burden of proof for a former owner attempting to claim adverse possession against a tax-deed holder. It establishes that statutorily permissive possession, such as that of a delinquent taxpayer for the first year after a tax sale, requires an overt, affirmative act to be converted into the hostile possession necessary for an adverse claim. The decision protects the stability of tax titles by preventing former owners from acquiring property through 'stealth' possession based on continued residence and ordinary maintenance. Future claimants in similar situations must now prove not only 10 years of possession but also that the possession was hostile for the entirety of that period, with the clock starting only upon an affirmative act of hostility.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Picerne v. Sylvestre (1979)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"