Hazard v. East Hills, Inc.
45 A.3d 1262
R.I.2012Background
- Subject Lot is about 26.5 acres in South Kingstown, described as Lot 28 on Tax Assessor's Plat 74, with an undeveloped 8-Acre Parcel disputed by Hazard and East Hills.
- In 1895 Violet Hazard conveyed two parcels (a 15-Acre Parcel and a 7.5-Acre Parcel) to Rev. George R. Hazard by warranty deed; defendant claims title to most of Lot 28 by this conveyance.
- Dr. George Hazard acquired the 8-Acre Parcel in 1809; plaintiff alleges it passed to Alexander P. Hazard and that Violet’s 1895 deed was invalid due to Violet’s capacity.
- A 1909 boundary agreement between Rev. Hazard and William F. Price defined Lot 28 boundaries, which plaintiff contends improperly subsumed the 8-Acre Parcel.
- Special Master Soloveitzik could establish chains of title for the 15- and 7.5-Acre Parcels but could not trace the 8-Acre Parcel from 1809 to present.
- Superior Court granted summary judgment for East Hills in 2011, concluding laches barred plaintiff’s claim and East Hills possessed Lot 28 by adverse possession and MRTA, adopting the boundary agreement as a title transaction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether laches bars Hazard’s claim | Hazard was not negligent and delays were justified. | Hazard delayed for over a century, causing prejudice and injustice. | Yes; laches barred Hazard. |
| Whether East Hills established adverse possession of Lot 28, including the 8-Acre Parcel | Defendant failed to prove adverse possession for the easterly portion and 8-Acre Parcel. | Over a century of exclusive, open, and hostile possession with improvements shows possession. | Court reserved judgment on merits after laches; however, laches forecloses the need to decide adverse possession here. |
| Whether the 1909 boundary agreement is a title transaction sufficient under MRTA | Boundary agreement improperly included the 8-Acre Parcel and is invalid. | Boundary agreement constitutes a title transaction under MRTA that reflects title in East Hills. | Yes; boundary agreement deemed a title transaction supporting East Hills' title under MRTA. |
| Whether the master’s findings for the 8-Acre Parcel could be completed given 1809 to present gaps | There is a viable chain of title for the 8-Acre Parcel that the master failed to complete. | The master could not complete the chain due to vagaries of 19th-century deeds and lack of records. | Court affirmed laches ruling; did not disturb MRTA/possession result. |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Reilly v. Town of Glocester, 621 A.2d 697 (R.I. 1993) (laches requires delay plus prejudice and equitable analysis)
- Fitzgerald v. O'Connell, 386 A.2d 1384 (R.I. 1978) (delay and prejudice required for laches)
- Chase v. Chase, 20 R.I. 202 (R.I. 1897) (delay causing inequitable change of conditions bars relief)
- School Committee of Cranston v. Bergin-Andrews, 984 A.2d 629 (R.I. 2009) (two-part test for laches: negligence and prejudice)
- Gardner v. Baird, 871 A.2d 949 (R.I. 2005) (adverse possession burden of proof; fact-intensive inquiry)
- Arcand v. Haley, 187 A.2d 142 (R.I. 1963) (laches considerations in equity)
- Womack v. San Francisco Community College District, 147 Cal.App.4th 854 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (per se unreasonable delays can defeat claims)