Caseflicks

New York Court of Appeals • 1974

Brand v. Prince

35 N.Y.2d 634 | 324 N.E.2d 314 | 364 N.Y.S.2d 826 | 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1069

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case confirms that adverse possession of contiguous land may be tacked across successive possessors even when the disputed parcel is omitted from the deed, so long as possession of that parcel was intended and actually transferred.

Background

The parties owned adjoining farms in the Town of Deposit, Delaware County. Between their properties lay a vacant 10-acre parcel. Neither party could establish record title by deed, and the plaintiff brought an article 15 action to establish title through adverse possession.

The evidence showed that the plaintiff's predecessors farmed the disputed parcel continuously from about 1945 or 1946 through 1961 while occupying and later owning the adjoining land. When those predecessors bought the adjoining property in 1956, the boundaries shown to them included the 10 acres. After buying the adjoining property in 1961, the plaintiff posted the parcel, rented it to a hunting club, and rented portions for pasture and haying; the land was also fenced and substantially enclosed.

After a nonjury trial, County Court held that neither side had proved deed title, that the plaintiff had not proved adverse possession, and implicitly that the defendant was entitled to possession. The Appellate Division unanimously reversed on the law and facts and directed judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed as of right to the Court of Appeals.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the plaintiff and his predecessors satisfied the substantive requirements for acquiring the 10-acre parcel by adverse possession.

Holding

Yes. The evidence supported the Appellate Division's conclusion that the plaintiff's side had possessed the parcel adversely for the statutory period.

Reasoning

Adverse possession requires actual possession that is hostile and under a claim of right, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous. In practical terms, the occupation must be of a kind that would have allowed the true owner to bring ejectment against the occupier throughout the prescriptive period.

The plaintiff's predecessors continuously used the disputed land for farming from approximately 1945 or 1946 until 1961. Their possession was connected with their tenancy and later ownership of the adjoining farm, and testimony showed that the boundaries presented to them when they bought that farm included the disputed acreage.

The plaintiff accounted for possession after his 1961 purchase by showing that he posted the land, rented it to a hunting club, and rented portions for pasture and haying. Evidence of fencing and substantial enclosure, together with those uses, also met the statutory requirement applicable to possession under a written instrument.

Issue #2

Whether the plaintiff could tack his predecessors' adverse possession even though the 10-acre parcel was omitted from the deed conveying the adjoining property to him.

Holding

Yes. Tacking was proper because the circumstances supported a finding that the predecessors intended to transfer, and actually transferred, possession of the disputed parcel along with the deeded land.

Reasoning

The plaintiff had possessed the parcel for fewer than 15 years, so he needed to combine his period of possession with that of his predecessors to satisfy the then-applicable statutory period.

Successive adverse possessions of land omitted from a deed description may be tacked, particularly where the omitted land is contiguous to the conveyed property, if the predecessor intended to and actually delivered possession of the undescribed land with the conveyed parcel.

An adverse possessor's interest arises from possession itself. Therefore, the possessory interest may pass by transferring possession, even orally, rather than only through a deed description. Here, the evidence that the predecessors treated the 10 acres as part of the adjoining farm and transferred the farm's possession to the plaintiff supported the conclusion that they also turned over possession of the disputed parcel.