Adverse Possession Demands Credible, Specific Proof of Exclusive Use for Ten Years

Introduction

These consolidated appeals arise from a boundary dispute between Edgar Sepulveda, as Trustee of the 7 Half Mile Road Living Trust, and homeowners John Buffum and Angie Salem. Sepulveda sought to establish title by adverse possession over a narrow strip of land—including bushes, mulch, and a section of a circular driveway—along the shared boundary between 7 and 5 Half Mile Road in Barrington, Rhode Island. Buffum and Salem counterclaimed for trespass and declaratory relief. The Superior Court ruled against Sepulveda on his adverse‐possession claim, credited Buffum and Salem on trespass, and ordered removal of the driveway encroachment plus an injunction barring Sepulveda from the contested area. Chief Justice Suttell’s ensuing opinion for the Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirms, emphasizing the necessity of clear and convincing, credible, and corroborated evidence of exclusive use over the full ten‐year statutory period.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. It held that Sepulveda, whose credibility the trial justice found wanting, failed to prove the “exclusive use” element of adverse possession for at least ten years. Though Sepulveda and his landscaper, Steven Rufino, testified that they alone had maintained the disputed area since 2003, the trial justice discredited them for lack of specifics, documentation, and inconsistent statements about boundary markers. By contrast, Buffum’s and the surveyor David Gardner’s testimony was deemed reliable, showing no continuous, notorious use prior to the construction of Sepulveda’s driveway in 2016–17. Because the actual encroachment lasted only three to four years—well short of the ten‐year requirement—the adverse possession claim failed. The trespass and declaratory judgments stood, as did the injunctions ordering driveway removal and barring entry.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

O’Keefe v. York, 308 A.3d 983 (R.I. 2024) – Reiterates that adverse possession requires “actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive use under a claim of right for at least ten years” and must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
Union Cemetery Burial Society of North Smithfield v. Foisy, 292 A.3d 1205 (R.I. 2023) – Confirms that maintenance and landscaping can demonstrate “open and notorious” use, but underscores the need for strict proof of exclusivity and duration.
Manchester v. Pereira, 926 A.2d 1005 (R.I. 2007), and Carrozza v. Voccola, 90 A.3d 142 (R.I. 2014) – Establish deference to trial justices’ factual findings and credibility assessments in nonjury cases, barring clear error.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the six elements of adverse possession—actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive use under a claim of right—and emphasized the ten‐year statutory period. It highlighted that:

Credibility Matters: The trial justice found Sepulveda’s testimony evasive and inconsistent regarding boundary markers and the timing of driveway construction. Rufino, as an interested witness with a long professional relationship, was also deemed unreliable.
Strict Proof Required: Self‐serving, uncorroborated testimony may be rejected when it lacks specific details, documentary support, or contains inherent contradictions.
Exclusive Use Began Too Late: Even accepting the driveway installation date of 2016–17 as the start of use, this fell far short of the ten years needed to perfect an adverse possession claim.

Impact

This decision reinforces that claimants seeking title by adverse possession must compile a robust evidentiary record:

Attorneys should advise clients to gather contemporaneous documents—surveys, maintenance logs, photographs—and to procure credible, disinterested witness testimony when asserting exclusive use.
Trial courts will continue to scrutinize the precision and consistency of adverse possession claims, leaning heavily on credibility findings made after in‐person testimony.
Future litigants should note that mere landscaping or informal maintenance, unsupported by clear records, will likely fail to establish the statutory period of exclusivity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Adverse Possession: A legal doctrine allowing a trespasser to acquire title if six conditions are met continuously for ten years: actual (they physically use the land), open and notorious (their use is visible to all), hostile (without the owner’s permission), continuous and uninterrupted, exclusive (not shared with the owner), and under a claim of right.
Clear and Convincing Evidence: A medium‐height burden of proof requiring that the claim be highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue.
Credibility Assessment: Trial justices in nonjury cases may accept or reject testimony based on consistency, detail, demeanor, corroboration, and witness interest or bias.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Sepulveda v. Buffum crystallizes a pivotal principle: adverse possession is not a remedy for informal or undocumented boundary encroachments. Claimants must present clear, convincing, and credible evidence—supported by reliable documentation and unbiased witnesses—that they have exclusively occupied and used the property for the full ten‐year statutory period. Vague assertions of maintenance or unsubstantiated memories will not suffice. This landmark decision will guide practitioners and courts in rigorously applying both the substantive elements of adverse possession and the exacting standards of proof and credibility in future boundary disputes.