Butterfly Realty v. James Romanella & Sons, Inc.
45 A.3d 584
R.I.2012Background
- Butterfly Realty and Dairyland, Inc. sue JR & Sons, Inc. to establish a prescriptive easement for access to Butterfly’s loading dock on JR land; dispute involves parcels 330 (JR), 331 (Dairyland), 332 (Butterfly) in Westerly, with a shared building encroaching onto JR property.
- Butterfly acquired parcel 332 and leased parcel 331 in 1985; JR & Sons granted an express easement in 1985 allowing Butterfly to access its loading dock, limited to non-semi-trailers and for loading/unloading.
- Access routes to the loading dock (the brown and green routes) run over JR property; the express easement describes a passage alongside Butterfly’s building.
- From 1985–1989 liquor-store deliveries used the loading dock; 1991–2006 AutoZone deliveries used the disputed area; 1993–2010 Auto Audio deliveries also used it; trash service likewise traversed JR land.
- In 2010 JR & Sons installed concrete pylons to constrain usage; Butterfly sought injunction and quiet title; trial court (2011) denied prescriptive easement and injunctive relief; Supreme Court vacated and remanded for legal reanalysis, including hostility, continuous use, and lessee use questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Butterfly proved hostility for prescriptive easement | Butterfly shows open, adverse use under claim of right | Use was consistent with JR & Sons’s rights | Hostility can be proven without inconsistency; trial court erred in requiring adverse acts to differ from owner |
| Whether continuous use satisfied ten-year requirement | Use from 1991–2010 exceeds ten years | Unclear interruption by Christmas-tree sales breaks continuity | Remand to resolve whether Christmas-tree period interrupted prescriptive use; 1991–2006 period may satisfy timeline |
| Whether imputing tenants’ use to Butterfly is proper | Tenant deliveries count toward Butterfly’s prescriptive use | Prescriptive rights must be within lease terms or landlord-tenant pattern | Remand to determine facts consistent with landlord–tenant doctrine on implied inclusion of easement |
| Whether Christmas-tree lot affected route usage | Tree sales impeded access | Tree lot did not meaningfully obstruct the routes | Remand to reevaluate impact of tree sales on continuous use and routes |
Key Cases Cited
- Reitsma v. Pascoag Reservoir & Dam, LLC, 774 A.2d 826 (R.I.2001) (hostility may be shown by open, adverse acts)
- Burke-Tarr Co. v. Ferland Corp., 724 A.2d 1014 (R.I.1999) (adverse-use concept in hostility analysis)
- Cahill v. Morrow, 11 A.3d 82 (R.I.2011) (clarifies hostility/claim-of-right standard in adverse possession context)
- Nardone v. Ritacco, 936 A.2d 200 (R.I.2007) (clear and satisfactory proof required for prescriptive elements)
- Tavares v. Beck, 814 A.2d 346 (R.I.2003) (principles of hostile use and claim of right)
- Jerry Brown Farm Association, Inc. v. Kenyon, 375 A.2d 964 (R.I.1977) (use pattern may imply easement within tenancy)
- Gardner v. Baird, 871 A.2d 949 (R.I.2005) (exclusive-use element not necessary for prescriptive easement)