Upon purchasing his property in 2004, Ronald Trombly erected a fence which prevented his neighbor, Richard Goss, from accessing a portion of a driveway that crossed onto Trombly's land.
Although Goss secured a deed to his property back in 2001, he had been utilizing the driveway for some eight years prior, pursuant to "rent-to-own" agreement. For the entire time, Goss had access to a public highway by means of a 12-foot wide strip of land which began on his property but continued until it was completely on Trombly's property.
In Goss v. Trombly , Goss sought to "quiet title" to that portion of the driveway which traversed Trombly's land and claimed ownership by adverse possession. The Clinton County Supreme Court agreed and directed Goss to submit a "course reading" so that the new boundary lines could be defined.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reiterated that to establish title by adverse possession, one must demonstrate by "clear and convincing evidence" that for a 10-year period possession was "open, notorious, exclusive, continuous, hostile and under a claim of right." Additionally, the disputed parcel must be either "cultivated or improved" or "protected by a substantial enclosure."
While Trombly contested any hostility or adversity by Goss, the AD3 dismissed as "pure speculation" Trombly's assertion that he had granted Goss permission as a neighborly accommodation. According to the AD3, Goss's daily use of the driveway for 11 years was adverse to Trombly's ownership interests and was clear and convincing evidence of "hostility."
Although the acts necessary to establish cultivation or improvement will vary depending on the "nature and situation of the property," such conduct must be consistent with that of a "thrifty owner."
According to the AD3, Goss's maintenance related activities -- plowing the driveway, scraping ice in the winter, mowing the grass along its borders, trimming overhanging shrubbery, and twice filling divots in the gravel -- matched those of a driveway owner.
While Trombly claimed that the Supreme Court erred in directing Goss to submit a course reading to define the driveway's new boundary line, the AD3 held that "a precise description of the adversely possessed area was necessary to appropriately quiet title and ensure marketability of title to both parties' parcels."
Clearly, the court wanted to ensure that these owners proceeded on the right course.
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use the following link: Goss v. Trombly