Can a party acquire title to another's land through adverse possession?

In 1947, the plaintiffs purchased four unimproved building lots (19, 20, 21, 22) in Yonkers, NY from the city. The defendants, who had owned adjacent lots (14, 15) since 1912, claimed adverse possession of the plaintiffs' lots. William Lutz, one of the defendants, asserted he had adversely possessed the lots for over 30 years. Lutz had extensively used and developed the property from around 1916 until his death in 1948, engaging in activities such as clearing the land, operating a truck farm, raising chickens, planting fruit trees, cutting timber, and constructing a small dwelling.

The property was locally known as 'Mr. Lutz's gardens'. Lutz cultivated and utilized the land continuously throughout this period, with no other employment after 1928. His use of the property spanned approximately 32 years, from 1916 to 1948, encompassing the time before the plaintiffs' purchase in 1947.

The plaintiffs initiated consolidated actions against the defendants, seeking removal of encroachments and possession of their land. The defendants responded by asserting adverse possession as both an affirmative defense and a counterclaim.

The case proceeded to trial before Hon. Frederick P. Close, serving as Official Referee. Judge Close ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that William Lutz had successfully established title through adverse possession by 1935.

Following this decision, the plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment, with one Justice dissenting.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs further appealed the case to the New York Court of Appeals, where it was currently pending review.

(Dye, J.)

Yes. A party can acquire title to another's land through adverse possession, but only under specific, stringent conditions that must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Adverse possession requires actual occupation under a claim of title for at least 15 years. The premises must be either protected by a substantial enclosure or usually cultivated or improved. Mere partial cultivation, placement of a small shed, or littering the property with junk does not satisfy these statutory requirements. The possession must be hostile, exclusive, open and notorious, continuous, and actual for the entire statutory period. Any acknowledgment of the true owner's superior title, such as conceding ownership in a separate legal matter, undermines the claim of hostile possession. The burden of proof rests heavily on the party claiming adverse possession to demonstrate that their use of the land unequivocally meets all necessary criteria. Sporadic or incomplete use of the property fails to establish the required continuous and exclusive possession. The law demands strict adherence to these standards to protect property rights and prevent unwarranted deprivation of title. Courts scrutinize adverse possession claims rigorously, requiring substantial evidence of improvement or cultivation of the entire premises in question. This high bar ensures that only those who have genuinely treated the land as their own for the requisite period can successfully claim title through adverse possession.

Dissent (Fuld, J.) There was sufficient evidence to support the lower courts' finding of adverse possession. Extensive cultivation of the land, neighborhood recognition of Lutz's claim, and the principle that a claim of title can be made by acts alone all support this conclusion. The majority's emphasis on the lack of clear proof of cultivation or improvement of the entire premises is misplaced. Acts of possession and ownership, when sufficiently open and notorious, can establish adverse possession without explicit verbal claims of title.

Dissent (Loughran, Ch. J.) Concurred with Fuld's dissenting opinion.

Dissent (Desmond, J.) Concurred with Fuld's dissenting opinion.