Tubolino v. Drake
178 A.D.2d 951 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish title by adverse possession under a claim of title (RPAPL § 512), a claimant must show possession that is hostile, under a claim of right, actual, open, notorious, exclusive, and continuous for ten years, where the element of 'usual cultivation or improvement' is determined by the nature of the property and the uses to which it can be applied.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs and their predecessors possessed a disputed 10-acre parcel of land since 1961, holding a quitclaim deed to the property.
- The land was unsuitable for farming or other development.
- Over many years, plaintiffs hunted, fished, trapped, and walked on the property.
- Plaintiffs cut numerous standing trees and fallen logs, using some for personal heating and selling the rest to loggers.
- To facilitate timber removal, plaintiffs constructed an access road and a drainage culvert on the property.
- Plaintiffs also repaired a footbridge and posted a 'no trespassing' sign.
- Plaintiffs and their predecessors paid property taxes on the separately assessed parcel for over twenty years.
- In 1988, defendants asserted a competing claim to the property for the first time.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs commenced an action in the New York Supreme Court, Oswego County, to quiet title to a parcel of land.
- Defendants filed a counterclaim asserting their own ownership of the property.
- After a non-jury trial, the trial court entered a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Appellate Division of the Supreme 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:
Do the plaintiffs' actions, including cutting timber, building a road, posting a sign, and paying taxes on a 10-acre parcel of undeveloped land, constitute sufficient 'usual cultivation or improvement' to establish title by adverse possession under New York law?
Opinions:
Majority - Denman, P. J., Doerr, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Yes. The plaintiffs' actions constitute sufficient cultivation and improvement to establish title by adverse possession because the acts required to show possession are relative to the nature and condition of the property. The court found that plaintiffs satisfied both the common-law and statutory elements for adverse possession. Their use of the land for hunting, fishing, and extensive logging, combined with building an access road, repairing a bridge, and posting a sign, constituted 'usual cultivation and improvement' for land that was otherwise wild and unsuitable for farming. These actions were open, continuous for the statutory period, and exclusive, as there was no evidence defendants or anyone else used the land. The element of hostility was presumed from the nature of the possession and further evidenced by the plaintiffs' deed, their consistent payment of property taxes, and the defendants' failure to object until 1988.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that the standard for 'actual possession' in adverse possession claims is flexible and context-dependent. It clarifies that for undeveloped, wild, or rural land, the required acts of 'cultivation or improvement' need not rise to the level of farming or building structures. Instead, activities consistent with the land's character, such as logging, creating access, and posting signs, are sufficient to put the true owner on notice and satisfy the statute. This provides a crucial precedent for claims involving non-arable or forested land, preventing an overly rigid application of the statutory requirements.
