Cahill v. Morrow
11 A.3d 82
| R.I. | 2011Background
- Cahill sued Morrow to obtain title to lot 19 on Gooseberry Road, South Kingstown, Rhode Island, contending she acquired it by adverse possession; Morrow is the record owner.
- From 1971 Cahill (through her predecessor in title) used and maintained lot 19, paid taxes, and allowed family and neighbors to use the land, consistent with ownership of an adjoining lot.
- Cahill sent a 1997 letter offering to purchase the lot from Morrow, indicating recognition of Morrow's superior title; no sale occurred and no ongoing dispute existed at that time.
- Cahill conducted various improvements and uses of the lot in the ensuing years, including mowing, planting, drainage work, and hosting events, which Cahill treated as her own.
- In 2006 Cahill filed suit asserting ownership by adverse possession for more than ten years; the trial justice found in Cahill’s favor in 2007, vesting title to Cahill, which was affirmed by an initially divided appellate history.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for reevaluation, holding that Cahill’s 1997 offer to purchase interrupted the running of the adverse-possession period and that pre-1997 conduct must be reassessed on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of 1997 offer to purchase on hostility | Cahill: offer negates claim of right and interrupts possession. | Morrow: offer does not automatically extinguish hostility if not in ongoing dispute. | Offer interrupts if it acknowledges superior title; trial court erred by treating later pre-1997 acts as evidence of possession post-offer. |
| Pre-1997 evidence sufficiency after interruption | Cahill: pre-1997 acts could establish possession despite later interruption. | Morrow: post-offer acts cannot be used to strengthen pre-1997 possession after interruption. | Remand to evaluate only pre-1997 events; post-1997 improvements cannot be considered to prove pre-1997 possession. |
| Burden and standard of proof | Cahill: clear and convincing standard satisfied by pre-1997 conduct. | Morrow: standard requires strict proof; improper consideration of post-1997 acts included. | On remand, the court must reassess under the proper standard focusing on pre-1997 conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Corrigan v. Nanian, 950 A.2d 1179 (R.I. 2008) (adverse possession requires clear and convincing proof of all elements)
- Tavares v. Beck, 814 A.2d 346 (R.I. 2003) (hostility and claim of right focus on objective manifestations, not knowledge)
- Picerne v. Sylvestre, 122 R.I. 85, 404 A.2d 476 (R.I. 1979) (recognition of superior title interrupts adverse possession; openness matters)
- Anthony v. Searle, 681 A.2d 892 (R.I. 1996) (cultivating land and improvements demonstrate possession)
- Acampora v. Pearson, 899 A.2d 459 (R.I. 2006) (open and continuous possession considerations, land character)
- Sherman v. Goloskie, 95 R.I. 457, 188 A.2d 79 (R.I. 1963) (possession must be actual and meaningful relative to land’s nature)