Raymond Desrochers v. Luigi Micheli III

Syllabus

The plaintiffs, Raymond Desrochers and Debra Desrochers, appealed in this adverse possession case from a final judgment that was largely, but not entirely, entered in favor of the defendant, Luigi Micheli III. The plaintiffs objected to the trial justice's finding that they failed to prove adverse possession as to one specific portion of the disputed area. On appeal, the plaintiffs contended, inter alia, that the trial justice erred in ruling that they failed to satisfy the hostility element of their adverse possession claim with respect to the portion of the disputed area which he found they did not adversely possess. The defendant cross-appealed from the entry of final judgment. The defendant contended that, with respect to the portion of land that the trial justice found plaintiffs had adversely possessed, the trial justice erred by failing to find that plaintiffs had not proven the element of hostility. He further argued that plaintiffs did not establish through clear and convincing evidence a sufficiently accurate description of the land which they claim to own through adverse possession. The Supreme Court held that further fact-finding would be necessary for the trial court to be able to determine whether the plaintiffs had proven by clear and convincing evidence the element of hostility of their claim for adverse possession. Additionally, the Court held that the plaintiffs had established the disputed area with reasonable accuracy by clear and convincing evidence as to the disputed area that existed along the previous tree line. However, the Court remanded the case for a factual determination as to the location of the disputed area beyond the previous tree line. Accordingly, the Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the Superior Court.