Taffinder v. Thomas
381 A.2d 519, 119 R.I. 545 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner may establish title by adverse possession by tacking their period of possession onto that of their predecessor in title. This predecessor's possession can be established through the continuous, open, and hostile use of the land by a tenant, so long as the disputed area was impliedly included within the terms of the lease.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs, the Taffinders, and the defendants, the Thomases, owned adjoining properties on Bellevue Avenue in Newport.
- A dispute arose over a triangular parcel of land situated between their properties.
- Felix F. Cowey, the Taffinders' predecessor in title, had a tenant named Joseph Comiskey for 18 years who continuously used the disputed parcel for parking.
- Cowey made statements indicating he believed he owned the triangular parcel and intended for Comiskey to use it.
- The Taffinders purchased their property from Cowey in 1967.
- Comiskey, as a tenant of both Cowey and later the Taffinders, parked on the parcel, placed a 'No Parking - Private' sign, performed maintenance like shoveling snow and raking leaves, and asked others, including the Thomases' tenants, to remove their vehicles.
- In 1974, after a fire on their property, the Thomases filed building plans that included construction on the disputed parcel.
- A subsequent examination of deeds revealed that neither party had record title to the parcel; it was held by the heir of Marie Cottrell, from whom the Taffinders later obtained a quitclaim deed.
Procedural Posture:
- The Taffinders (plaintiffs) filed a civil action in the Superior Court (trial court) to enjoin the Thomases (defendants) from trespassing on the disputed parcel.
- The Thomases filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that they owned the property.
- Following a bench trial, the Superior Court justice found that the Taffinders had acquired title through adverse possession.
- The trial court entered a judgment permanently enjoining the Thomases from trespassing or building on the parcel and dismissed their counterclaim.
- The Thomases (appellants) appealed the 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 landowner acquire title by adverse possession when they tack on their predecessor's period of possession, which is established through the continuous, open, and hostile use of the land by a tenant whose lease impliedly included the disputed area?
Opinions:
Majority - Doris, J.
Yes. A landowner acquires title by adverse possession under these circumstances. The court found that the Taffinders, who had only possessed the property for eight years, could tack their period of possession onto the period of their predecessor, Mr. Cowey, to satisfy the ten-year statutory requirement. The continuous use of the parcel by the tenant, Mr. Comiskey, inured to the benefit of the landlords (Cowey and the Taffinders) because the evidence supported the trial court's finding that use of the parcel was impliedly included in the tenant's lease. Furthermore, the possession was hostile because the actions of the landlords and their tenant were inconsistent with the rights of the true owner. Hostility in the context of adverse possession does not require ill will but is satisfied by acting as the owner against the entire world, even if under a mistaken belief of ownership.
Analysis:
This case clarifies how the doctrine of 'tacking' in adverse possession applies within a landlord-tenant relationship. It establishes that a landlord can use their tenant's actions to satisfy the elements of adverse possession, provided there is evidence that the disputed land's use was at least impliedly part of the lease agreement. The decision reinforces the objective nature of the 'hostility' requirement, affirming that a mistaken belief about a boundary line is sufficient as long as the claimant exercises dominion over the property inconsistent with the true owner's rights. This precedent is significant for property disputes where possession has been maintained by successive owners through their tenants.
