Clarifying the Ten-Year Exclusive Use Requirement and Credibility Assessment in Adverse Possession

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island’s decision in Edgar Sepulveda, in his capacity as Trustee of the 7 Half Mile Road Living Trust v. John Buffum et al. (Nos. 2024-28-Appeal & 2024-29-Appeal) addresses key issues in adverse possession and trespass law. Edgar Sepulveda (“Sepulveda”) claimed title to a strip of land adjoining his property at 7 Half Mile Road by adverse possession. John Buffum and Angie Salem (“Buffum & Salem”), owners of the neighboring property at 5 Half Mile Road, counter‐claimed for trespass and sought declaratory relief establishing their exclusive title to the disputed area. Following a bench trial, the Superior Court found in favor of Buffum & Salem, ordered Sepulveda to remove his encroaching driveway, and enjoined him from entering the disputed strip. Sepulveda appealed, arguing primarily that his continuous, exclusive maintenance of the strip since 2003 satisfied the ten-year requirement for adverse possession and that the trial court improperly discredited his uncontradicted testimony.

Summary of the Judgment

The Superior Court held that Sepulveda’s use of the disputed area began only when he constructed his reconfigured driveway in 2016 or 2017—far short of the ten years required for adverse possession.
It found Sepulveda’s and his landscaper’s testimony lacking in credibility—vague, uncorroborated by documentation, and impeached by inconsistencies—while crediting Buffum’s and the surveyor’s accounts.
Because Sepulveda failed to prove the exclusive use element over the statutory period, his adverse-possession claim was dismissed.
The court granted Buffum & Salem relief: a declaratory judgment confirming their title, damages for trespass, and injunctions requiring removal of the encroaching driveway and barring future entry on the disputed land.
The Supreme Court of Rhode Island summarily affirmed, emphasizing deference to the trial justice’s factual and credibility assessments in non-jury proceedings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Union Cemetery Burial Society of North Smithfield v. Foisy, 292 A.3d 1205 (R.I. 2023): Reiterated that adverse possession requires “actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive use” for ten years, and that ordinary landscaping may demonstrate open and notorious use.
O’Keefe v. York, 308 A.3d 983 (R.I. 2024): Confirmed that adverse-possession elements must be established by clear and convincing evidence, and underscored the strict proof requirement.
Carrozza v. Voccola, 90 A.3d 142 (R.I. 2014): Emphasized appellate deference to a trial justice’s findings in non-jury cases, particularly credibility determinations, unless clearly erroneous or based on a misapprehension of material evidence.
Anton v. Houze, 277 A.3d 695 (R.I. 2022): Reaffirmed that live testimony credibility evaluations rest within the trial justice’s sound discretion and merit great deference on appeal.
Pelletier v. Laureanno, 46 A.3d 28 (R.I. 2012): Held that uncontradicted testimony may be rejected if inherently improbable, self-contradictory, or given by an interested, biased witness, provided the trial justice explains the rejection.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s ruling rests on two pillars: (1) the statutory ten-year duration of exclusive hostile use and (2) the credibility of evidence presented. Under Rhode Island law, a claimant must demonstrate actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession under a claim of right for ten years. Sepulveda’s sole proof of exclusive possession was his own testimony and that of his landscaper, Steven Rufino. The trial justice—who observed the witnesses firsthand—found both witnesses unreliable:

No contemporaneous records or land-maintenance contracts were produced to corroborate the decade-long claim of exclusive control.
Testimony about boundary stakes and survey monuments was evasive, internally inconsistent, and contradicted by the land surveyor’s deposition.
Rufino’s close business relationship with Sepulveda rendered his statements biased.

With exclusive use established only upon the driveway’s encroachment in 2016/2017, the requisite ten-year period was never met. The Court therefore affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of adverse possession and granted relief to Buffum & Salem on trespass and declaratory-judgment grounds.

Impact on Future Cases

This decision reinforces two critical takeaways for adverse possession claims in Rhode Island:

Strict Ten-Year Clock: Courts will pinpoint the moment hostile use begins—whether by landscaping, driveway construction, or other acts—and measure the full ten years from that point.
Credibility & Documentary Evidence: Firsthand observations by trial justices carry substantial weight. Claimants must proffer clear, consistent testimony and documentary proof (maintenance records, photographs, tax bills) to survive a bench trial’s factual scrutiny.

Going forward, plaintiffs asserting adverse possession in boundary disputes should prepare detailed logs of maintenance, contemporaneous correspondence, surveys, and photographic evidence to bolster claims of uninterrupted exclusive use.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Adverse Possession: A legal doctrine allowing a trespasser to acquire title to land if use is open (visible), notorious (well-known), hostile (without permission), continuous, and exclusive for the statutory period (ten years in Rhode Island).
Exclusive Use: Control of the disputed land by the claimant alone—no shared or permissive use by neighbors or the public.
Credibility Determination: The trial justice’s assessment of witness truthfulness based on demeanor, consistency, and objective corroboration. In bench trials, these findings are highly deferential on appeal.
Declaratory Judgment: A judicial pronouncement resolving the parties’ legal rights—in this case, affirming Buffum & Salem’s title to the land and denying any title interest by Sepulveda.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island’s decision in Sepulveda v. Buffum et al. reaffirms that adverse possession claims hinge on a strict, ten-year period of exclusive hostile use and that a trial justice’s credibility findings are virtually unassailable absent clear error. Claimants must back their testimony with solid documentary evidence to survive non-jury boundary disputes. This ruling underscores the importance of precision in demarcating when adverse acts commence and highlights the decisive role of credibility in land-title litigation.