Tioga Coal Co. v. Supermarkets General Corp., 519 Pa. 66

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

1988

Chapter

38-39

Title

Adverse Possession

Page

804

Topic

If open, notorious, exclusive and continuous, then hostility is IMPLIED

Quick Notes

The Coal company challenged the appellate court decision which affirmed the trial court's holding that Coal Company's use of a street was not hostile or adverse to the true owner, the supermarket, as required to perfect its claim of adverse possession.

There was a strip of land known as Agate Street, located within Supermarkets' property and bordering the Coal Companys property.  Agate Street is a paper street forty feet wide which was entered on the plan of the City of Philadelphia but was never opened to the public. A paper street is a road or street that appears on maps but does not exist in reality.  Paper streets generally occur when city planners or subdivision developers lay out and dedicate streets that are never built.  Agate Street was stricken from the city plan in 1966.   

The Coal Company took control of the gate to Agate Street in 1948 by putting a lock on the gate.  The Coal Company controlled ingress and egress for 30 years.

Although the court found that Tioga's possession was "actual, open, notorious, exclusive and continuous" for a period in excess of the required twenty-one years, it determined that the Coal Company had failed to establish that its use or possession of Agate Street was hostile or adverse to the true owner of the land.

Justice Holmes - View of Adverse Possession

o         If an owner abandons his land and the land is possessed and used by another for the statutory period, beyond which the true owner no longer has a cause of action in ejectment, the trespasser has put down roots which we should not disturb.

Court  - If open, notorious, exclusive and continuous, then hostility is IMPLIED.

o         Justice Holmes' view is consistent with a requirement that adverse possession be characterized by hostility as well as the other elements of the cause of action, for it is inconceivable that if an adverse possessor actually takes possession of land in a manner that is open, notorious, exclusive and continuous, his actions will not be hostile to the true owner of the land as well as to the world at large, regardless of the adverse possessor's state of mind.

Court - Holding

o         If the true owner has not ejected the interloper within the time allotted for an action in ejectment, and all other elements of adverse possession have been established, hostility will be implied, regardless of the subjective state of mind of the trespasser.

Book Name

Fundamentals of Modern Property Law: Rabin; Kwall, Kwall.  ISBN:  978-1-59941-053-1.

Issue

o         Whether hostility will be implied if the elements of open, notorious, exclusive and continuous are met?  Yes. 

Procedure

Trial

o         Trial court held that Tioga Coal Cos use or possession of a street was not hostile or adverse to the true owner of the land as required to perfect its claim of adverse possession against the supermarket

Appellant

o         Affirmed

Supreme

         Reversed

Facts/Cases

Discussion

Reasoning/Key Phrase

Rules/Laws

Pl - Tioga Coal Co

Df - Supermarkets General Corp

Suit

o         The Coal Company challenged the appellate court decision which affirmed the trial court's holding that Coal Company's use of a street was not hostile or adverse to the true owner, the supermarket, as required to perfect its claim of adverse possession.

Description

o         There was a strip of land known as Agate Street, located within Supermarkets' property and bordering the Coal Companys property. 

o         Agate Street is a paper street forty feet wide which was entered on the plan of the City of Philadelphia but was never opened to the public.

o         A paper street is a road or street that appears on maps but does not exist in reality. 

o         Paper streets generally occur when city planners or subdivision developers lay out and dedicate streets that are never built. 

o         Agate Street was stricken from the city plan in 1966.   

Locked Gate for 30 years

o         The Coal Company took control of the gate to Agate Street in 1948 by putting a lock on the gate. 

o         The Coal Company controlled ingress and egress for 30 years.

Appellate Court

o         Although the court found that Tioga's possession was "actual, open, notorious, exclusive and continuous" for a period in excess of the required twenty-one years, it determined that the Coal Company had failed to establish that its use or possession of Agate Street was hostile or adverse to the true owner of the land.

Modern Law - Availability

o         Many commentators regard the availability or non-availability of an action in ejectment as dispositive of whether an adverse possession claim will succeed

Modern Law - Statute of Limitation

o         The emphasis in modern law is on the statute of limitations which bars an action for ejectment.

Dominant View - Acquiring Title by Adverse Possession Test

o         Has the adverse possessor so acted on the land in question as to give the record owner a cause of action in ejectment against him for the period defined by the statute of limitations?

o         It matters not what the motives or the state of mind of the possessor are.

o         What matters is the possessor's physical relationship to the land over a sufficient length of time.

o         IF the possessor has the record owner's PERMISSION, THEN possession is then NOT LONGER HOSTILE in a legal sense, and no right to title will accrue to the possessor.

o    The record owner has no cause of action against one whom he has permitted to occupy the land.

Hostility Requirement

o         Hostility does not mean ill will, it simply implies the INTENT to hold title against the record owner.

Schlagel v. Lombardi

o         Superior Court observed that possession may be hostile even if the claimant knows of no other claim and falsely believes that he owned the land in question.

Some Jurisdictions [Minority]

o         One who does not know he is in possession of anothers land CANNOT harbor the specific INTENT to OUST the other out of his land.

Most Jurisdictions [Majority]

o         Deem the animus [ill will intention] of the possessor irrelevant.

o         They look at the actual physical facts of the possession to determine if such circumstances of notoriety exist so that the true owner is put on NOTICE.

o         Hostility is implied is all other elements have been established.

Superior Court Analysis

o         Took the position that the doctrine of implied hostility was applicable only in cases involving boundary disputes or mistaken belief of ownership by one or both of the parties involved.

Not present in this case

o         Tioga believed that Agate Street was owned by the City.

o         The Superior Court was unwilling to imply hostility "where the claimant acknowledges the ownership of another."

o          In Superior Court's view, therefore, what was required was that Tioga know who the true owner of the land was, meet all of the other requirements of actual, continuous, exclusive, visible, notorious, and distinct possession, and direct its hostility toward the true owner of the land.

Tioga Arguments - Both boundary dispute mistaken belief

o         This case involves both a boundary dispute and a mistaken belief of ownership on the part of one of the parties.

Boundary of both parties

o         The disputed strip of land was located on the boundary of both properties.

Thought it was the Cities land and not the supermarket

o         Tioga mistakenly believed that Agate Street was city property, not part of the parcel owned by Supermarkets.

Used land for more than 21 years.

o         Tioga asserts that its taking and using the lands of another for longer than the required twenty-one years is "hostile" within the meaning of the law of adverse possession.

Justice Holmes

Justice Holmes - Objective (Person puts down roots deserves protection)

o         The use of objective, as opposed to subjective tests, may involve an essentially equitable consideration that a person who has put down his roots on land develops an attachment to the land which is deserving protection.

Justice Holmes - cannot be displaced without cutting at his life

o         The true explanation of title by prescription seems to me to be that man, like a tree in a cleft of a rock, gradually shapes his roots to his surroundings, and when the roots have grown to a certain size, cannot be displaced without cutting at his life.

Justice Holmes - View of Adverse Possession

o         If an owner abandons his land and the land is possessed and used by another for the statutory period, beyond which the true owner no longer has a cause of action in ejectment, the trespasser has put down roots which we should not disturb.

Courts Opinion

Court  - If open, notorious, exclusive and continuous, then hostility is IMPLIED.

o         Justice Holmes' view is consistent with a requirement that adverse possession be characterized by hostility as well as the other elements of the cause of action, for it is inconceivable that if an adverse possessor actually takes possession of land in a manner that is open, notorious, exclusive and continuous, his actions will not be hostile to the true owner of the land as well as to the world at large, regardless of the adverse possessor's state of mind.

Court - Holding

o         If the true owner has not ejected the interloper within the time allotted for an action in ejectment, and all other elements of adverse possession have been established, hostility will be implied, regardless of the subjective state of mind of the trespasser.

Reversed

Rules

Class Notes