Russo v. Stearns Farms Realty, Inc.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
117 R.I. 387, 367 A.2d 714 (1977)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To acquire title by adverse possession, use of rural, unimproved land does not need to be constant, but must be continuous in a manner consistent with how a typical owner would use such property for the statutory period. A title owner's minor, ambiguous intrusions may not be sufficient to defeat the element of exclusive possession.

Facts:

The plaintiffs and their predecessors, the Martins, believed they owned land adjacent to their house, but record title belonged to the defendants, the McGaughans.
For over ten years, the Martins used the southern portion of the disputed land as a play area for their grandchildren, complete with a swing set, brick barbecue, sandbox, and picnic table, and performed regular maintenance such as mowing and raking.
The plaintiffs continued this use, replacing the swing set, adding horseshoe pits, building a fence along the road, improving the driveway, and planting several trees.
On the western portion of the land, a shed and an outhouse existed; the Martins used the shed for storage and the outhouse until they installed indoor plumbing around 1963 or 1964.
After removing the outhouse, the Martins filled in the remaining hole to make the area safe for their grandchildren to play in.
Soon after purchasing the property, the plaintiffs remodeled the shed into a pony stall, built a corral fence around the western portion, and planted grass.
During this period, Mrs. McGaughan, one of the defendants, posted 'No Hunting' signs on trees in the wooded area bordering the cleared land being used by the plaintiffs and their predecessors.

Procedural Posture:

The plaintiffs filed a civil action in the Superior Court seeking to quiet title to a parcel of real property by virtue of adverse possession.
A trial was held before a Superior Court justice sitting without a jury.
The trial justice found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding them title to the disputed land.
The defendants appealed the 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 the seasonal and recreational use of adjacent rural property, combined with general maintenance, satisfy the continuous and exclusive possession elements required to establish title by adverse possession, despite a temporary break in one activity and the record owner's posting of 'No Hunting' signs on the periphery?

Opinions:

Majority - Bevilacqua, C. J.

Yes. The use of the property satisfies the requirements for adverse possession. To acquire title by adverse possession, a claimant's possession must be actual, open, notorious, hostile, under claim of right, continuous, and exclusive for the statutory period. For rural land, the continuity requirement does not mandate constant use, but rather a use consistent with that of a typical owner of similar property. The court found that the Martins' and plaintiffs' use of the land for recreation, storage, and general maintenance met this standard, and the temporary break between the outhouse's removal and the corral's construction did not destroy continuity. Furthermore, the defendants' posting of 'No Hunting' signs did not interrupt the plaintiffs' exclusive possession because the trial court reasonably concluded the signs were placed in the surrounding woods, not in the cleared, occupied area, and thus did not sufficiently assert the defendants' dominion over the specific land being claimed.

Analysis:

This case clarifies the application of the 'continuous' and 'exclusive' elements of adverse possession to rural, non-agricultural land. It establishes that continuity is determined by the nature of the land itself, allowing for seasonal or recreational use to satisfy the requirement so long as it mimics the behavior of a typical owner. The decision also sets a high bar for a record owner to interrupt an adverse possessor's exclusivity, suggesting that minor, peripheral acts that do not directly challenge the claimant's specific area of dominion may be insufficient to defeat a claim. This provides greater certainty for adverse possessors of land used for recreational or yard-like purposes.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Russo v. Stearns Farms Realty, Inc. (1977)

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