Joyce DiPippo, Individually and as Trustee of the Joyce DiPippo Living Trust dated June 10, 1992 v. Louis Sperling
63 A.3d 503
R.I.2013Background
- Plaintiffs own 90 Overhill Road (Plat 219, Lot 9); defendants own 86 D’Agnillo Drive (Plat 219, Lot 172); properties abut; disputed area is northern portion of defendants’ lot.
- Plaintiffs used the disputed area since 1972 as part of their yard (pool, tree fort, hammock).
- Defendants surveyed their boundary in 2003; a stake for the northern border was placed within the disputed area.
- In 2003-2004, discussions occurred when Sperlings indicated ownership and that payment/indemnification would be required for hammock use; no settlement occurred.
- In 2004-2005, defendants notified neighbors of potential adverse-possession challenges; 2005 indemnification agreement was signed by DiPippo to allow hammock use in exchange for indemnification; later events included tree concerns and a fence by defendants in 2008; suit for adverse possession filed 2009; trial court ruled for defendants in 2011.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court judgment, holding that plaintiffs did not prove hostile possession under a claim of right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2005 indemnification agreement shows a concession of title | DiPippo argues it was not a settlement and did not concede ownership | Sperlings contend it shows acceptance of superior title as implied by permission | Not dispositive; evidence considered under Cahill framework; not a clear concession |
| Whether plaintiffs’ use was hostile under a claim of right | Use was with permission after discussions; not hostile | Use reflected acceptance of defendants’ superior title via permission and indemnity | Not hostile; arrangements indicate subordination to owner’s rights |
| Whether post-ten-year discussions can alter the hostility analysis | Post-period discussions cannot evidence hostility | Such discussions are relevant objective manifestations of superior title | Trial court’s reliance on those manifestations was not clearly wrong; Cahill applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Cahill v. Morrow, 11 A.3d 82 (R.I. 2011) (objective manifestations after the statutory period relevant to claim of right)
- Tavares v. Beck, 814 A.2d 346 (R.I. 2003) (hostility defined as inconsistent use with owner’s rights)
- Corrigan v. Nanian, 950 A.2d 1179 (R.I. 2008) (strict proof standard for adverse-possession elements)