Tioga Coal Co. v. Supermarkets General Corp.
519 Pa. 66, 546 A.2d 1 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a claim of adverse possession, the element of 'hostility' is implied if the claimant's possession is actual, continuous, exclusive, visible, and notorious for the statutory period, regardless of the claimant's subjective belief about who actually owns the property.
Facts:
- Tioga Coal Company and Supermarkets General Corporation owned adjacent properties.
- A strip of land known as Agate Street, a 40-foot wide 'paper street' that was never opened to the public, was located on Supermarkets' property and bordered Tioga's property.
- Around 1948, Tioga took control of a gate that provided access to Agate Street by placing its own lock on it.
- For approximately 30 years, from 1948 to 1978, Tioga maintained the lock, controlled all ingress and egress, and used Agate Street for its business operations.
- Throughout this entire period, Tioga mistakenly believed that Agate Street was owned by the City of Philadelphia, not by Supermarkets General.
Procedural Posture:
- Tioga Coal Company filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas (trial court) against Supermarkets General Corporation, seeking title by adverse possession.
- The Chancellor initially denied the claim, finding the statutory period was 40 years, which Tioga had not met.
- Tioga appealed to the Superior Court (intermediate appellate court), which reversed and remanded, holding the period was 21 years if the land was non-manorial.
- On remand, the Chancellor found the 21-year period applied and that Tioga's possession met all physical requirements, but denied the claim again, ruling the possession was not 'hostile' because Tioga believed the City owned the land.
- The court en banc affirmed the Chancellor's decree.
- Tioga appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed the decision of the court en banc.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted allocatur to hear Tioga's appeal.
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 an adverse possessor’s subjective belief that the land is owned by a third party, rather than the true record owner, defeat the 'hostility' element required to establish title by adverse possession?
Opinions:
Majority - Flaherty, Justice
No. A claimant's subjective state of mind is irrelevant to the hostility element of adverse possession. The focus is on the objective physical acts of the possessor, not their internal beliefs. If a true owner has not ejected the interloper within the time allotted for an action in ejectment, and all other elements of adverse possession have been established (actual, open, notorious, exclusive, continuous possession), hostility will be implied. The court reasons that this objective approach is more workable than attempting to discern a possessor's mental state, promotes the use of land against abandonment, and is consistent with the statute of limitations underlying the doctrine of adverse possession. The court adopts the view that if a possessor's actions are sufficient to give the record owner a cause of action for ejectment, and the owner fails to act, the hostility element is satisfied.
Dissenting - McDermott, Justice
Yes. A claimant's mistaken belief about ownership defeats the hostility element. The law requires an intent to hold title against the record title holder, not against some other party or the world at large. In a modern system with recorded land titles, allowing someone to gain title without specifically intending to dispossess the actual owner is inappropriate. The majority's reliance on an objective test is a 'romantic notion' unsuited for a modern, organized state where titles are recorded and clear.
Concurring - Larsen, Justice
No. The claimant's subjective belief does not defeat the hostility element. Where a claimant's possession is sufficiently open and notorious to put the true owner on notice of an adverse claim, that possession is hostile. Tioga’s act of maintaining a locked gate was a sufficiently open and notorious claim to the property to put Supermarkets on notice of the hostile possession. Therefore, hostility is properly implied when all the other elements of adverse possession are established.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Pennsylvania's adherence to the objective standard for the hostility element in adverse possession, aligning it with the majority of jurisdictions. By making the possessor's subjective intent irrelevant, the court simplifies the analysis and focuses solely on the observable facts of possession. This ruling places a greater burden on property owners to be vigilant in monitoring their land, as they can lose title to a possessor whose claim is based on a mistake. It also makes it easier for claimants to succeed in adverse possession cases, particularly in boundary disputes or situations involving mistaken ownership, by removing the difficult evidentiary hurdle of proving a specific, hostile state of mind toward the true owner.
Unlock the full brief for Tioga Coal Co. v. Supermarkets General Corp.