Tavares v. Beck
814 A.2d 346 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claimant's subjective knowledge that they do not hold legal title to a property does not defeat the 'claim of right' and 'hostility' elements of an adverse possession claim. These elements are satisfied by objective acts of ownership that are inconsistent with the rights of the record owner.
Facts:
- In 1977, James Amarantes acquired property adjacent to three undeveloped parcels owned by the record-title holder, Horace P. Beck.
- A survey conducted between 1978-79 revealed to Amarantes that the three parcels were not included in the property he had purchased.
- Despite knowing he did not own the parcels, Amarantes used them as if he did, by posting no-trespassing signs bearing his name, constructing a large stone wall, digging drainage ditches, and cutting wood.
- During the period of Amarantes's use, the record owner, Beck, resided out of state in Vermont.
- In 1991 and 1993, Amarantes deeded the three disputed parcels to Lawrence and Edna Tavares.
- The Tavareses sought to be declared the rightful owners of the property, relying on their possession and the preceding possession by Amarantes.
Procedural Posture:
- Lawrence and Edna Tavares filed suit against Horace P. Beck in Rhode Island Superior Court (trial court) seeking to quiet title to three parcels of land based on a claim of adverse possession.
- The cases were consolidated and a nonjury trial was held.
- The trial justice entered judgment for the defendant, Beck, finding the Tavareses failed to prove adverse possession.
- The trial justice ruled that the Tavareses could not tack their predecessor's (Amarantes's) period of possession because his use was not under a 'claim of right' since he knew he did not own the land.
- The Tavareses (plaintiffs-appellants) 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 a claimant's knowledge that they do not hold legal title to a property defeat the 'claim of right' and 'hostility' elements required for an adverse possession claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A claimant's knowledge that they do not hold legal title to a property does not defeat the 'claim of right' and 'hostility' elements for adverse possession. The pertinent inquiry centers on the claimant's objective manifestations of adverse use rather than on the claimant's knowledge that they lacked colorable legal title. The trial justice erred by misconstruing the claim-of-right doctrine, which is synonymous with hostility and is established by open, visible acts inconsistent with the true owner's rights. A claimant's subjective state of mind, even that of a 'black-hearted trespasser,' is irrelevant. The court also erred by considering the record owner's out-of-state residence as a factor, because an owner is chargeable with knowledge of what occurs openly on their land regardless of their location. Finally, the trial justice improperly applied the 'clean hands' doctrine, as the act of intentionally using another's land to gain title is the very essence of adverse possession, not an inequitable act that bars the claim.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Rhode Island's adoption of the objective standard for the 'claim of right' and 'hostility' elements of adverse possession, rejecting any requirement of good-faith belief in ownership. It clarifies that a possessor's intent is determined by their outward acts, not their internal knowledge, thereby aligning with the majority view in American jurisprudence. The ruling reinforces the burden on landowners to be vigilant in monitoring their property, as an owner's absence or inattentiveness is no defense against an open and notorious adverse claim. This precedent makes it clear that the focus in such cases should be on the nature of the possessor's use of the land, rather than their state of mind or the owner's personal circumstances.
Unlock the full brief for Tavares v. Beck