Adverse Possession Uninterrupted by Federal Forfeiture: A Comprehensive Commentary on New Phase Realty, LLC v. Jeremy J. Fournier (R.I. 2025)

1. Introduction

In New Phase Realty, LLC v. Fournier, the Rhode Island Supreme Court confronted a collision between state adverse-possession doctrine and federal civil-forfeiture practice. The case arose from a ten-year neighborhood land dispute in West Warwick involving:

• Plaintiffs / Appellants: Daniel B. Struebing and Amanda L. Lyons (successors to New Phase Realty, LLC) – record owners of 17 Bradford Court.
• Defendants / Appellees: Jeremy J. Fournier and Jennifer M. Fournier – owners of 11 Bradford Court, claiming a triangular strip of the adjoining lot by adverse possession.

During the statutory period, federal agents executed a search warrant on 17 Bradford Court and later secured a civil forfeiture order. Plaintiffs argued that this “seizure” interrupted the running of the ten-year period required to perfect an adverse-possession claim under G.L. 1956 §34-7-1, and that the Superior Court was bound by the federal forfeiture judgment (res judicata). The trial court granted summary judgment to the Fourniers on their counterclaim for adverse possession, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court (Robinson, J.) held unanimously that:

1. The federal writ of entry and subsequent forfeiture order did not constitute a “seizure” that would toll or interrupt the statutory adverse-possession period.
2. Even assuming arguendo that a seizure occurred in April 2019, the Fourniers had already completed the ten-year period by December 31, 2018; title vested immediately at that point.
3. The Fourniers demonstrated the required elements of adverse possession – actual, open, notorious, hostile, exclusive, and continuous possession – by clear and convincing evidence.
4. The Superior Court properly granted summary judgment; there were no genuine issues of material fact, and res judicata did not bar the state proceeding.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

• Union Cemetery Burial Society of North Smithfield v. Foisy, 292 A.3d 1205 (R.I. 2023)
  Restated the codified elements of adverse possession and clarified the “strict proof” standard. 
• Clark v. Buttonwoods Beach Ass’n, 226 A.3d 683 (R.I. 2020)
  Emphasized that title vests automatically after ten years of qualifying possession.
• Carnevale v. Dupee, 783 A.2d 404 (R.I. 2001)
  Explained that vesting is immediate at the moment the statutory period ends, insulating the new title from later events.
• Acampora v. Pearson, 899 A.2d 459 (R.I. 2006)
  Accepted ordinary residential uses (lawn care, play, etc.) as satisfying actual and open possession.
• Federal authority: 18 U.S.C. §985(b)(2)
  States that a writ of entry for inspection in a civil-forfeiture action “shall not be considered a seizure.”

The Court drew heavily on these decisions to confirm that: (1) title by adverse possession vests automatically; and (2) ordinary yard activities, fencing, and tax payments are sufficient indicia of hostile and exclusive possession.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The opinion proceeded in two logical steps:

1. Was there a “seizure” that could interrupt the statutory clock?
   The Court relied on the federal government’s own pleadings in the District Court, which expressly disclaimed any seizure and invoked §985(b)(2). Consequently, the execution of the search warrant and writ of entry did not amount to a legal seizure.
2. If a seizure had occurred, would it matter?
   Under Carnevale and §34-7-1, once ten years of qualifying possession elapse, title vests and cannot be divested by subsequent events unless legally conveyed. Because the Fourniers’ possession dated back to December 2008, they crossed the ten-year threshold in December 2018—four months before the federal activity. Therefore, any later seizure (real or constructive) could not disturb the vested title.

The Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ remaining arguments as follows:

• Fact-finding allegation: Summary judgment was proper because the plaintiffs produced no contrary evidence; the court did not weigh credibility but applied the law to undisputed facts.
• Res judicata: The federal forfeiture order concerned the rights between the United States and the prior owner; it did not adjudicate the boundary dispute or the Fourniers’ claim of adverse possession. Moreover, the District Court explicitly allowed the state court to resolve private claims.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

The case breaks new doctrinal ground in Rhode Island by expressly holding that federal civil-forfeiture proceedings—when they do not involve an actual seizure—do not toll, suspend, or otherwise affect the running of the adverse-possession statute. Key anticipated ripple effects include:

• Adverse-possession litigation: Litigants can rely on this decision to argue that external governmental interventions, unless they physically exclude the possessor, do not interrupt the statutory period.
• Real-property transactions: Title insurers and buyers must recognize that a perfected (vested) adverse-possession interest is insulated from later federal forfeiture claims against the record owner.
• Federal-state interface: The opinion delineates jurisdictional boundaries, clarifying that state courts retain authority over private boundary disputes even when federal forfeiture decrees affect the record title.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Adverse Possession: A method of acquiring legal title to land by openly using it as one’s own for a statutorily defined period (ten years in Rhode Island), without the consent of the true owner.
• Vesting: The moment when legal title permanently transfers to the possessor—here, automatically upon completion of ten years of qualifying occupancy.
• Seizure vs. Writ of Entry: A “seizure” takes physical control of property, interrupting possession. A “writ of entry” under 18 U.S.C. §985(b)(2) merely authorizes inspection and is not a seizure.
• Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion): A doctrine preventing re-litigation of claims already decided between the same parties. It applies only when the very issue was resolved in the prior case.
• Summary Judgment: A procedural mechanism to dispose of a case without trial when no genuine dispute of material fact exists.

5. Conclusion

New Phase Realty, LLC v. Fournier cements an important principle in Rhode Island property law: once the elements of adverse possession have been satisfied and ten years have run, title vests and is not undone by subsequent federal forfeiture proceedings that do not themselves constitute a seizure. The decision underscores the evidentiary rigor required for adverse possession while providing clarity on the interplay between state property doctrines and federal forfeiture statutes. Practitioners should heed the Court’s insistence on concrete, uncontested facts at the summary-judgment stage and its reaffirmation that adverse possession remains a robust, self-executing method of acquiring land—even in the shadow of federal law-enforcement actions.