Walling v. Przybylo
851 N.E.2d 1167 · New York Court of Appeals · 2006
Facts
In January 1986, the Wallings purchased lot 22, and in 1989, the Przybylos purchased adjoining lot 23 in Queensbury, New York. Both lots were unimproved, and the parties built homes and swimming pools; plaintiffs also built a shed. In May 1987, plaintiffs bulldozed, deposited fill and topsoil, dug a trench, and installed PVC pipe for water drainage on the disputed portion of defendants' northerly side yard. Before defendants moved in (May 1994), plaintiffs also constructed an underground dog wire fence and continuously mowed, graded, raked, planted, and watered the disputed grassy area. In 1992, plaintiffs placed a 10-foot post with a birdhouse on the disputed land, which remained in place. In 2004, defendants had the land surveyed and discovered they held title to the disputed portion. Upon learning this, plaintiffs initiated an action to quiet title.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs brought an action to quiet title by adverse possession. The Warren County Court initially granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, but later modified its decision to deny summary judgment after a motion to renew. The Appellate Division then modified the County Court's order by reversing the denial of summary judgment to plaintiffs and granting their motion. The case was subsequently appealed to this court.
Issue
Does an adverse possessor's actual knowledge that another person holds legal title to the property, in and of itself, defeat a claim of right for adverse possession?
Holding
No, the court held that actual knowledge that another person is the title owner does not, in and of itself, defeat a claim of right by an adverse possessor, and affirmed the Appellate Division's order granting summary judgment to plaintiffs.
Rule
To establish a claim of adverse possession, possession must be proven by clear and convincing evidence and must be (1) hostile and under claim of right; (2) actual; (3) open and notorious; (4) exclusive; and (5) continuous for the required period, which is at least 10 years. The court reasoned that longstanding decisional law dictates that an adverse possessor's actual knowledge of the true owner is not fatal to a claim of right. Conduct, specifically actual occupation and the true owner's acquiescence, will prevail over subjective knowledge. Adverse possession serves as a necessary means of clearing disputed titles.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.