Sherman v. Goloskie

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
95 R.I. 457, 188 A.2d 79 (1963)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To acquire title to wild and unimproved rural land by adverse possession, a claimant must prove by a preponderance of clear and positive evidence that their possession was actual, open, notorious, hostile, under claim of right, continuous, and exclusive for the statutory period, demonstrated by acts of dominion consistent with those an ordinary owner of similar land would exercise.

Facts:

In 1941, Theodore F. Goloskie began using a parcel of wild, wooded land located along the Ponagansett Reservoir.
Over the subsequent years, Goloskie's use of the land included hunting, fishing, cutting wood, picking berries, patrolling the area, and posting signs.
Goloskie also occasionally rented campsites on the land to others and ordered trespassers to leave, sometimes seeking assistance from state conservation officers.
In 1959, Clarence Smith executed a deed conveying a portion of this land, known as the "Potter Lot," to Grover A. Sherman.
Sherman disputed Goloskie's claim of exclusive use, presenting evidence that Goloskie's acts of dominion were not as continuous or exclusive as claimed, particularly on the Potter Lot itself.

Procedural Posture:

Grover A. Sherman sued Theodore F. Goloskie in the Rhode Island Superior Court (a court of first instance sitting in equity) seeking an injunction to stop Goloskie from trespassing on the 'Potter Lot'.
Goloskie filed a cross-bill in that suit, denying Sherman's title and claiming ownership of the Potter Lot by adverse possession.
In a separate action, Goloskie sued Sherman in the same court, asserting his own title to a larger parcel that included the Potter Lot.
The Superior Court heard the two suits together.
The trial justice found that Sherman held record title to the Potter Lot and that Goloskie had failed to prove adverse possession, granting the injunction for Sherman and dismissing Goloskie's claims.
Goloskie, as the appellant, appealed the decrees from both suits 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 claimant's use of wild, unimproved rural land for activities like hunting, fishing, posting signs, and occasionally renting campsites meet the requirements of open, notorious, and hostile possession necessary to establish title by adverse possession when the record title holder presents conflicting evidence?

Opinions:

Majority - Roberts, J.

No. A claimant's use of wild land does not meet the requirements for adverse possession if the acts of dominion are not sufficiently open, notorious, and hostile to provide notice to the true owner, especially when the evidence of such use is substantially contradicted. To acquire title by adverse possession, a claimant must prove possession that is actual, open, notorious, hostile, under claim of right, continuous, and exclusive for the statutory ten-year period. For wild and unimproved land, the acts of dominion must be consistent with how an ordinary owner of similar land would use it. The burden of proof on the claimant is 'strict proof,' which the court defines as proof by a preponderance of clear and positive evidence. In this case, the evidence regarding Goloskie's possession was in direct and substantial conflict. The trial justice, who had the advantage of assessing witness credibility, was not clearly wrong in finding that Goloskie failed to meet this high burden of proof and that his actions were not sufficiently notorious or hostile to establish his claim.

Analysis:

This case clarifies the application of adverse possession doctrine to wild, unimproved land, emphasizing that while the type of use may differ from developed property, the legal requirements of open, notorious, and hostile possession remain stringent. It establishes that the burden of proof is 'strict proof,' meaning a preponderance of clear and positive evidence, which places a high bar on claimants. The decision also reinforces the significant deference appellate courts grant to trial court findings on conflicting evidence, particularly when witness credibility is a central factor, making it more difficult to overturn a trial court's adverse possession determination on appeal.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Sherman v. Goloskie (1963)

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