Mahoney v. Tara, LLC, 107 A.3d 887

Mahoney family rented and then owned the Mahoney Lot with about 75 feet of lakeshore; Tara, LLC’s successor acquired the Tara Lot in 2006 and boundary signs reflected the Mahoneys’ understanding of the line; VCC operated Camp Tara from 1958 to 2004 and claimed charitable exemption under 12 V.S.A. §462; trial court found plaintiffs’ use from 1949 onward was open, hostile, and exclusive to establish adverse possession; VCC’s charitable use was deemed continuous during its ownership; the court calculated periods of adverse possession and acquiescence and concluded they were under 15 years, thus not gifting title; plaintiffs appealed asserting tolling issues, §462 applicability to acquiescence, and miscalculations of time periods; the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed with a different rationale.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Tolling effect of quiet-title action on adverse-possession period	Mahoney argued quiet-title action tolls the prescriptive period	Taint tolling should occur only with tenancy by possession, not quiet-title actions	Motion to dismiss tolled; quiet-title filing alone does not toll the period
§462 applicability to acquiescence claims	Acquiescence should not be exempt from §462’s exemption	§462 applies to acquiescence as it does to adverse possession	§462 applies equally to acquiescence and adverse possession
Pre-1949 acquiescence findings and boundary understanding	Evidence shows possible earlier acquiescence supporting plaintiffs’ claim	Trial court’s factual findings support boundary understanding as of 1949	Trial court’s findings not clearly erroneous; acquiescence timeframe unresolved in plaintiffs’ favor
Duration and timing of VCC’s charitable use under §462	Charitable use was limited to actual Camp Tara operation	Charitable use extended to off-season and preparatory periods	Charitable exemption began when VCC took title (1958) and ended (2004); use during off-season counted

Roy v. Woodstock Cmty. Trust, 2013 VT 100A (2013 VT 100A) (establishes that adverse-possession focus is on title and possession, and §462 applies to acquiescence and adverse possession)
Okemo Mountain, Inc. v. Lysobey, 2005 VT 55 (2005 VT 55) (review of legal conclusions is de novo; acquiescence claims involve mixed questions)
First Congregational Church of Enosburg v. Manley, 2008 VT 9 (2008 VT 9) (mixed questions of law and fact in acquiescence; deferential factual review)
Mahoney v. Tara, LLC, 2011 VT 3 (2011 VT 3) (prior decision addressing §462 boundary and charitable exemption)