Walsh v. Cappuccio
602 A.2d 927 (1992)
Rule of Law:
To acquire title by adverse possession, a claimant's possession of the land must be actual, open, notorious, hostile, under claim of right, continuous, and exclusive for the statutory period. Intermittent and non-exclusive use of an undeveloped area, such as dumping grass clippings or occasional passage, is insufficient to signal a claim of title to the true owner.
Facts:
- In 1973, Edward Fortune purchased lot No. 304 and cleared it, mistakenly including a triangular portion of the adjacent lot No. 305 because he assumed the property lines were perpendicular to the road.
- On this cleared area, which encroached on lot No. 305, Fortune built a house, installed a septic system, created a lawn, and constructed a driveway.
- Fortune and his successors in title lived on and maintained the cleared area, including the encroaching portion, for several years.
- In 1979, James T. Walsh purchased the property and continued to maintain the lawn up to the apparent boundary lines established by Fortune.
- Walsh and his tenants also periodically dumped grass clippings and yard debris onto an uncleared, wooded portion of the encroaching area, which Walsh referred to as a 'buffer zone.'
- In October 1985, the Cappuccios purchased the adjacent lot No. 305.
- In early 1986, a survey conducted for the Cappuccios revealed that Walsh's house, septic system, and yard encroached significantly onto their lot, No. 305.
Procedural Posture:
- James T. Walsh filed a civil action against Joseph and Marion Cappuccio in Washington County Superior Court, claiming ownership by adverse possession of a portion of their lot.
- A nonjury trial was held in the Superior Court.
- The trial court found in favor of Walsh, concluding that he had acquired title to the entire disputed northeasterly portion of the Cappuccios' property.
- Judgment was entered for Walsh on April 20, 1990.
- The Cappuccios (appellants) appealed the trial court's 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 claimant's use of an uncleared portion of land for dumping yard debris and occasional passage meet the requirements of open, notorious, exclusive, and hostile possession sufficient to acquire title by adverse possession?
Opinions:
Majority - Shea, Justice.
No. A claimant's use of an uncleared portion of land for dumping yard debris and occasional passage does not meet the requirements for adverse possession, though possession of an adjacent, clearly maintained area may be sufficient. The court affirmed that Walsh had acquired title to the cleared portion of the lot (containing the house, yard, and septic system) because the use by him and his predecessors was actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive for the ten-year statutory period. However, the court reversed the finding as to the uncleared 'buffer zone,' holding that merely dumping yard waste and occasionally walking across the area was insufficient to establish the elements of exclusivity, claim of right, openness, or hostility. Such minimal use was not enough to 'signal the true owner of the land that a claim of title contrary to his own is being asserted.'
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the qualitative standard for what constitutes sufficient 'possession' in an adverse possession claim, particularly concerning undeveloped or wild land. The court bifurcates its analysis, demonstrating that a claimant can successfully possess one portion of a disputed tract while failing to possess another. The ruling establishes that minimal, intermittent activities like dumping yard waste are not overt enough to put a record owner on notice of a hostile claim. This reinforces the high evidentiary burden required to divest a true owner of property rights and underscores that each part of a disputed parcel must independently satisfy all elements of adverse possession.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Walsh v. Cappuccio (1992)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"