186 A.3d 590
R.I.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (the Coscinas) own 100 Paris Irons Rd.; defendants (the DiPetrillos) own adjoining 86 Paris Irons Rd. Dispute concerns two tracts called “Cheryl’s Front Pasture” and “Cheryl’s Back Pasture.”
- Plaintiffs claimed they used both tracts continuously and exclusively for decades and sued for title by adverse possession; defendants counterclaimed to quiet title.
- Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on adverse possession, submitting multiple affidavits and a survey (with handwritten notes). The hearing justice initially questioned lack of metes-and-bounds for the back pasture but granted summary judgment as to adverse possession while reserving the exact boundary determination.
- Plaintiffs later submitted a new survey with metes-and-bounds; defendants contested that the claimed areas changed and that the new survey may reflect post-hearing alterations and was unauthenticated.
- An evidentiary hearing addressed boundaries; the hearing justice credited the plaintiffs’ surveyor and entered judgment for adverse possession after remaining claims were stipulated away. Defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on adverse possession was proper | Coscina: affidavits and surveys show actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, exclusive possession for statutory period | DiPetrillo: material factual disputes about the scope and location of claimed parcels preclude summary judgment | Vacated: summary judgment improper because disputed material facts remained and trial is needed |
| Adequacy of boundary description (metes and bounds) | Coscina: later-provided survey with metes-and-bounds clarifies boundaries | DiPetrillo: boundaries were inconsistent, evolved, and new survey may reflect post-judgment changes | Held for DiPetrillo: clear demarcation is essential; conflicting surveys/pre- vs post-hearing changes preclude summary judgment |
| Admissibility/authentication of plaintiffs’ survey evidence | Coscina: survey and affidavits were sufficient to support motion | DiPetrillo: original survey was unauthenticated and contained counsel’s handwritten notes so not admissible | Court agreed the affidavits/survey evidence were insufficiently reliable for summary adjudication |
| Use of evidentiary fact-finding at summary judgment stage | Coscina: hearing evidence resolved boundary questions | DiPetrillo: the hearing justice impermissibly engaged in fact-finding under Rule 56 | Court: trial-level fact-finding at summary judgment was improper; Rule 56 limits pretrial resolution of disputed material facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Carnevale v. Dupee, 783 A.2d 404 (R.I. 2001) (adverse possession requires proof by clear and convincing evidence of each element)
- Anthony v. Searle, 681 A.2d 892 (R.I. 1996) (elements of adverse possession and standard for "hostile" possession)
- DelSesto v. Lewis, 754 A.2d 91 (R.I. 2000) (disputed facts about extent/nature of use preclude summary judgment in adverse possession cases)
- M & B Realty, Inc. v. Duval, 767 A.2d 60 (R.I. 2001) (adverse possession claims are fact-intensive and rarely amenable to summary judgment)
- Sola v. Leighton, 45 A.3d 502 (R.I. 2012) (standard of review: de novo review of summary judgment decisions)