Devins v. Borough of Bogota
592 A.2d 199 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1991
Facts
Bogota acquired a 25x100 foot vacant lot (Lot 10) in 1962 through in rem foreclosure and has not used or dedicated it for public purpose since. In 1965, plaintiffs James and Mary Devins purchased an adjacent residence and also received a quitclaim deed for Lot 10 from their grantors. A chain link fence, erected before 1958, enclosed Lot 10 and matched the fence around the Devins' house lot, creating an appearance of common ownership. Since 1965, the Devins used Lot 10 for parking, cookouts, lounging, recreation, installed a basketball backboard and a shed, and maintained the property. Bogota did not challenge their use, but the Devins never paid taxes on Lot 10. In 1985, the Devins' attorney requested Bogota concede title by adverse possession, which the Borough promptly denied, asserting immunity from such claims.
Procedural history
The Chancery Division granted summary judgment for the municipality, ruling that adverse possession does not run against a municipality, despite plaintiffs establishing facts that could constitute adverse possession. The Appellate Division affirmed this ruling. The plaintiffs-appellants were granted certification by this court. This court reversed the Appellate Division's judgment and remanded the case to the Chancery Division.
Issue
The primary issue is whether adverse possession should apply to municipally-owned property not dedicated to or used for a public purpose.
Holding
The court held that municipally-owned property neither dedicated to nor used for a public purpose is subject to acquisition by adverse possession. The judgment of the Appellate Division was reversed, and the matter remanded to the Chancery Division.
Rule
Adverse possession allows title acquisition by possessing property in a specified manner for a statutory period, barring the owner's right to ejectment. Historically, the "nullum tempus occurrit regi" doctrine prevented adverse possession against governmental entities, particularly for public-use property. However, the court ruled that this exception should not extend to municipal land not dedicated to or used for non-governmental purposes. This decision is based on public policy favoring repose, certainty of title, efficient land use, and encouraging municipalities to manage their property, outweighing the traditional rationales for governmental immunity. The court reasoned that municipalities should be expected to discover and manage their property within statutory limits, similar to private owners, to return unused land to the tax rolls.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.