Adverse Possession by Unaware Cotenants under RPAPL 541

Introduction

Golobe v. Mielnicki, 2025 NYSlipOp 01670 (N.Y. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2025), addresses a novel question under New York’s adverse possession statute (RPAPL 541): whether a cotenant may acquire full title to property through adverse possession even when neither cotenant is aware of the co-tenancy. In this case, John Golobe administered his aunt’s estate and, relying on an erroneous family-tree affidavit, believed himself to be the sole distributee. He occupied and improved the property for over 20 years before discovering that his uncle—and the Emil Kraus Revocable Trust, his successor—actually held a one-half interest. Golobe sued for sole ownership by adverse possession; the Trust counterclaimed for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The Court of Appeals held that Golobe met all the elements of adverse possession, that his belief of sole title was a reasonable claim of right, and that there was no actionable fraud or breach of fiduciary duty. It thus affirmed dismissal of the Trust’s counterclaims and declared Golobe the sole owner.

Summary of the Judgment

Chief Judge Wilson, writing for the Court, affirmed the Appellate Division’s grant of summary judgment to Golobe. The Court held:

Fraud Claim – Dismissed. The Trust failed to raise any triable issue on scienter or justifiable reliance. Golobe had no intent to deceive the Trust and the Trust had no knowledge of Golobe’s representations or omissions until 2018.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty – Dismissed. As administrator, Golobe owed fiduciary duties to distributees, but he fulfilled them by relying on the family-tree affidavit of a disinterested witness in conformity with the regulations (22 NYCRR 207.16). A search is reasonable if it follows the prescribed affidavit/testimony procedure, even if in retrospect it proves incorrect.
Adverse Possession – Established. Under RPAPL 541, the presumption that a cotenant’s exclusive possession is for the benefit of all cotenants ceases after ten years of continuous, exclusive occupancy. Having occupied, paid taxes, collected rent, executed a mortgage, and made extensive renovations for more than 20 years, Golobe satisfied the elements of hostility, claim of right, open and notorious use, actual, exclusive, and continuous possession. Mutual mistake as to cotenancy does not defeat hostility once RPAPL 541’s period has expired.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 (1986) – Summary judgment burden shifting.
Jacobsen v. NYC Health & Hosp. Corp., 22 NY3d 824 (2014) – Prima facie showing on summary judgment.
Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499 (2012) – Nonmovant’s burden once movant makes a prima facie showing.
Pasternack v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 27 NY3d 817 (2016) – Elements of fraud: misrepresentation, scienter, purpose, reliance, injury.
Jo Ann Homes at Bellmore, Inc. v. Dworetz, 25 NY2d 112 (1969) – Reckless misrepresentation.
Myers v. Bartholomew, 91 NY2d 630 (1998) – RPAPL 541 presumption and ouster.
Walling v. Przybylo, 7 NY3d 228 (2006) – Rebuttable presumption of hostility in adverse possession.
Estate of Becker v. Murtagh, 19 NY3d 75 (2012) – Adverse possession elements and presumption of hostility.
Hindley v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 185 NY 335 (1906) – Mutual mistake does not negate hostility.
Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz, 304 NY 95 (1952) – Effect of prior judicial concession on hostility.
Belotti v. Bickhardt, 228 NY 296 (1920) & Brand v. Prince, 35 NY2d 634 (1974) – Policy rationale for adverse possession.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in three parts:

Fraud and Fiduciary Duty. Under Jacobsen, Alvarez, and Vega, summary judgment required Golobe to establish absence of material fact issues. The Trust could not show Golobe knowingly misrepresented anything to the Trust before 2018, so scienter and reliance fail. On fiduciary duty, administrators must conduct a “reasonable search” for heirs; the regulations (22 NYCRR 207.16) prescribe proof by affidavit or testimony of a disinterested person plus a family tree. Golobe complied with those rules; hindsight error does not mean the search was unreasonable.
RPAPL 541 and Hostility. Myers held that cotenants face a presumption of nonadverse possession that lapses after ten years of exclusive occupancy. At that point, presumption ends and hostility is judged as in ordinary adverse possession (Walling; Becker). Hostility requires assertion of a right adverse to the true owner, presumed by “usual acts of ownership.” Mutual mistake about co-tenancy does not defeat hostility (Hindley; Becker). From 2002 onward, Golobe’s exclusive, open, notorious, continuous possession gave rise to hostility, unrebutted by the Trust.
Claim of Right and Open & Notorious. Golobe obtained an Administrator’s Deed in 1992, which under RPAPL 501(3) gives a reasonable basis for believing he owned the whole property. His payment of taxes, leasing, rent collection, mortgage execution, structural gut renovation, window and roof replacement—all visible and recordable—satisfied open and notorious use sufficient to put a diligent owner on inquiry notice.

3. Impact on Future Cases and the Area of Law

Golobe establishes for the first time in New York that a cotenant may acquire full title by adverse possession without actual or constructive awareness of the co-tenancy, once RPAPL 541’s presumption has lapsed. This holding:

Clarifies the interplay between RPAPL 541 and the common law presumption favoring unity of cotenants.
Confirms that mutual mistake does not bar hostility once the ten-year exclusive occupancy triggers adverse holding.
Encourages practitioners to monitor tenancy-in-common relationships and to advise co-owners of their interests.
May spur legislative or regulatory refinements if the legislature deems additional protections for unsuspecting cotenants necessary.
Reinforces the importance of record-based instruments (administrator’s deeds) as establishing a claim of right.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Adverse Possession Elements (RPAPL 501): (1) hostility (claim of right), (2) actual possession, (3) open and notorious, (4) exclusive, (5) continuous for at least 10 years (20 years for cotenants).
Hostility: Possession asserting title against the true owner. The “usual acts of ownership” (renting, improving, taxing) raise a presumption of hostility.
Presumption of Nonadverse Possession (RPAPL 541): A cotenant’s exclusive possession is presumed for all cotenants until ten years of exclusive occupancy lapse (or ouster).
Ouster: Express or implied denial of cotenants’ rights. Under RPAPL 541, either ten years of exclusive use or actual ouster will permit a cotenant to hold adversely.
Claim of Right: A reasonable basis for believing one owns the property (e.g., a recorded deed).
Open & Notorious: Possession visible enough to put a diligent owner on inquiry notice.
Fiduciary Duty & Heir Search: Administrators must make reasonable efforts (affidavit/testimony of a disinterested person plus family-tree chart under 22 NYCRR 207.16) to locate all distributees before distributing an estate.

Conclusion

Golobe v. Mielnicki marks a significant development in New York adverse possession law: it endorses full title acquisition by a cotenant who, jointly with the nonpossessing cotenant, was unaware of the co-tenancy, so long as RPAPL 541’s ten-year presumption period has run and all other adverse possession elements are met. It also clarifies that reasonable compliance with Surrogate’s Court regulations shields an administrator from fiduciary-duty claims, even if a later‐discovered heir had been overlooked. As a result, estate administrators, cotenants, and practitioners must be alert to potential survivor interests and consider early notice mechanisms to avoid unintended extinguishment of property rights.