O'Connor v. Larocque, 31 A.3d 1

Siblings share a parcel of land from their father; mother conveyed to plaintiff in 1980 believing she owned full title.
Certificate of devise/descent recorded in 1972 allocating one-third to mother and one-sixth to each child.
Plaintiff later learned she did not have full title; defendant refused to quitclaim her one-sixth share in 1987.
Before suit, surviving spouses of other siblings transferred their interests to plaintiff in 2007, giving plaintiff five-sixths and defendant one-sixth.
Plaintiff filed quiet title action Oct. 1, 2007, alleging adverse possession against the cotenant; second count sought equitable relief based on reciprocal equities.
Trial court held plaintiff overcome the cotenant adverse-possession presumption and found all elements of adverse possession; judgment quieted title for plaintiff; defendant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff overcomes the cotenant adverse-possession presumption	O'Connor proved exclusive, hostile possession since 1980	Presumption against cotenants cannot be overcome without clear, unmistakable ouster	No; plaintiff failed to prove clear and convincing ouster or proper notice.
Whether plaintiffs’ intent and notice were sufficiently proven	Trial court found intent to disseize from 1980 forward; defendant knew of cotenancy	No explicit or constructive notice prior to 1997; records and actions insufficient	Finding of intent and notice inadequate; not clearly supported by evidence.
What is the proper standard of review for adverse-possession between cotenants	Standard is mixed with deference to trial court on factual findings	Legal conclusions on elements are reviewable de novo; defer to trial court on facts	Affirmed that review is mixed; but held trial court’s factual findings insufficient.

Lucas v. Crofoot, 95 Conn. 619 (Conn. 1921) (ouster where color of title or exclusive possession indicated adverse possession to cotenants)
Ruick v. Twarkins, 171 Conn. 149 (Conn. 1976) (constructive notice and ouster through exclusive possession over time)
Camp v. Camp, 5 Conn. 291 (Conn. 1824) (prosser-like presumptions of ouster after long exclusive possession)
Newell v. Woodruff, 30 Conn. 492 (Conn. 1862) (intent to dispossess requires knowledge of cotenancy; mandatory for damages/ejectment context, influence on adverse-possession)
Bryan v. Atwater, 5 Day (Conn.) 181 (Conn. 1811) (long, unaccounted possession may support adverse-possession inference)