Rhode Island Adverse Possession Law: The Supreme Court’s Foisy Decision and What Property Owners Should Know

October 2026 | Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC

Property ownership disputes frequently arise when the boundaries reflected in recorded deeds and surveys differ from how land has actually been occupied and used for many years. A homeowner may have maintained a neighboring parcel, constructed improvements beyond a recorded boundary, or treated an adjoining strip of land as part of the property for decades.

Under certain circumstances, Rhode Island law permits a person to acquire ownership of land through adverse possession. However, establishing such a claim requires clear and convincing evidence satisfying specific legal requirements.

One of the important recent Rhode Island Supreme Court decisions addressing these requirements is The Union Cemetery Burial Society of North Smithfield v. Foisy, 292 A.3d 1205 (R.I. 2023).

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC represented the property owners, John and Donna Foisy, in their successful appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. Attorney Ryanna T. Capalbo argued the appeal on their behalf. The Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court judgment against the Foisys and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

The decision provides important guidance concerning the evidence necessary to establish open and notorious possession, the significance of historical property use, and the circumstances under which an appellate court may reverse a trial court’s adverse possession findings.

What Is Adverse Possession Under Rhode Island Law?

Adverse possession is a legal doctrine under which a person may acquire ownership of property belonging to another when the person’s possession satisfies the requirements established by Rhode Island law.

The principal statute is R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-7-1, which establishes a ten-year period of qualifying possession.

To establish adverse possession, a claimant must prove that possession was actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive under a claim of right for at least ten years.

The claimant must establish the required elements by clear and convincing evidence.

These requirements serve different purposes. Actual possession concerns the physical occupation or use of the disputed property. Open and notorious possession concerns whether the use was sufficiently visible or apparent to place the record owner on notice. Hostility generally concerns possession inconsistent with the owner’s rights rather than possession authorized by permission. Continuity and exclusivity concern the nature and duration of the claimant’s possession.

The application of these elements depends upon the particular property, its character, the conduct of the parties, and the available evidence.

For a more detailed discussion, visit our Rhode Island Adverse Possession Practice.

The Foisy Case: A Longstanding Property Dispute in North Smithfield

The Foisy litigation arose from a dispute between the Union Cemetery Burial Society of North Smithfield and adjoining property owners John and Donna Foisy.

The Foisy family’s property had been owned by successive generations beginning in 1922. The controversy involved two adjoining areas referred to in the litigation as the northern encroachment and eastern encroachment.

The northern encroachment consisted of approximately 12,682 square feet, while the eastern encroachment consisted of approximately 12,131 square feet.

The cemetery asserted that both areas were part of its property and that the Foisys had improperly encroached upon them.

The Foisys maintained that their longstanding possession and use of the disputed areas supported a claim of ownership through adverse possession.

The Northern Encroachment

The evidence concerning the northern encroachment included decades of activity involving the storage of vehicles, scrap metal, equipment, and other materials.

The record included testimony concerning the use of the property by Mr. Foisy’s father, municipal notices dating back to 1981, photographs, and testimony from representatives of the cemetery.

The cemetery’s own representative acknowledged observing the storage activities and testified concerning the continued occupation and use of the disputed area.

The evidence also addressed whether the activities were sufficiently visible and whether the precise locations of stored materials had changed over time.

The Eastern Encroachment

The eastern encroachment presented different factual circumstances.

Evidence concerning that area included lawn maintenance, vegetation management, the planting of arborvitae, the placement of boulders, fencing, and historical use of the property by the Foisy family.

The parties disagreed about whether those activities were sufficient to establish open and notorious possession over the required period.

The dispute illustrates an important feature of adverse possession litigation: the character of the property and the manner in which an owner would ordinarily use it can be relevant to evaluating the claimant’s conduct.

The Superior Court’s Decision

Following a bench trial, the Rhode Island Superior Court ruled against the Foisys on their adverse possession counterclaim.

The trial justice concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish the required actual, continuous, open, and notorious possession of the disputed areas.

The Superior Court entered judgment in favor of the cemetery and ordered the removal of structures, objects, and materials from the encroachments.

The Foisys appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC represented them in that appeal, with attorney Ryanna T. Capalbo presenting their arguments before the Court.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court’s Decision in Foisy

On May 10, 2023, the Rhode Island Supreme Court issued its decision in The Union Cemetery Burial Society of North Smithfield v. Foisy, 292 A.3d 1205.

The Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Court concluded that the trial justice had overlooked or misconstrued material evidence and failed to properly account for relevant Rhode Island precedent concerning adverse possession.

The Northern Encroachment: Evidence of Visible and Continuous Use

The Supreme Court examined testimony concerning the longstanding storage of vehicles, scrap materials, and equipment on the northern encroachment.

The evidence included testimony from both Mr. Foisy and the cemetery’s representative concerning the character and duration of the property’s use.

The Court determined that the evidence was sufficient to establish the relevant actual, continuous, open, and notorious elements of possession.

The Court also rejected the argument that the claim necessarily failed because the stored materials had changed in location or size over time.

An important consideration was that the parties had stipulated to the boundaries of the two disputed areas, which were identified on a survey introduced at trial.

The decision demonstrates the importance of evaluating the entire evidentiary record rather than isolating particular activities or requiring an identical pattern of physical occupation throughout the statutory period.

The Eastern Encroachment: Property Maintenance and the Character of the Land

The Supreme Court separately evaluated the evidence concerning the eastern encroachment.

Unlike the northern area, the eastern encroachment involved activities such as mowing, vegetation maintenance, landscaping, fencing, and other uses consistent with the character of the property.

The Court concluded that the trial justice had given insufficient weight to material evidence and had not properly applied controlling adverse possession decisions.

The Supreme Court determined that the Foisys had established the open and notorious character of their use and possession of the eastern encroachment by clear and convincing evidence.

The decision illustrates that adverse possession does not necessarily require construction of a building or other substantial permanent improvement.

Whether particular activities constitute sufficient possession depends upon the character of the land, the duration of the use, and the surrounding circumstances.

What the Supreme Court Did—and Did Not—Decide

The distinction between the appellate ruling and a final determination of ownership is important.

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment against the Foisys and concluded that the Superior Court had erred in its evaluation of the evidence concerning actual, continuous, open, and notorious possession.

However, the Supreme Court did not finally determine that the Foisys had established every required element of adverse possession.

Instead, the Court remanded the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings concerning the hostile and exclusive elements of the adverse possession claim, as necessary.

Accordingly, the reported appellate decision represents a successful challenge to the adverse judgment and an important ruling concerning the evidentiary requirements for adverse possession. It should not be characterized as a final Supreme Court judgment awarding title to the Foisys.

Readers can review the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s Foisy opinion.

Why Foisy Matters for Rhode Island Property Owners

The Foisy decision offers several important lessons for property owners involved in adverse possession and boundary disputes.

1. Historical Property Use Can Be Critical

Evidence concerning property use many years before a lawsuit may determine whether the required statutory period has been satisfied.

Historical photographs, municipal notices, correspondence, surveys, and testimony from individuals familiar with the property can become important evidence.

In Foisy, historical activities and testimony concerning longstanding possession were central to the Supreme Court’s analysis.

2. Open and Notorious Possession Does Not Require a Particular Type of Improvement

Adverse possession claims are highly fact-dependent.

The character of the land and the activities ordinarily associated with its use may affect whether possession is sufficiently visible.

The absence of a permanent building does not necessarily defeat an adverse possession claim.

Similarly, activities such as mowing or landscaping must be evaluated in context rather than automatically treated as sufficient or insufficient.

3. The Entire Evidentiary Record Matters

The Supreme Court’s decision demonstrates that trial courts must evaluate material evidence in light of the applicable legal standards.

Evidence that is undisputed or corroborated by an opposing party may be particularly significant.

The Supreme Court’s reversal in Foisy arose from its conclusion that the trial justice had overlooked or misconstrued material evidence and failed to account for instructive precedent.

4. Clearly Identifying the Disputed Property Is Important

Adverse possession litigation frequently requires careful identification of the land being claimed.

Surveys, legal descriptions, historical plans, and stipulations concerning the location and boundaries of disputed property can play an important role.

In Foisy, the parties’ stipulation identifying the northern and eastern encroachments was significant to the Supreme Court’s rejection of an argument concerning the definition of the claimed areas.

5. Possession by Prior Owners May Be Relevant

Rhode Island law recognizes that, under appropriate circumstances, successive periods of qualifying possession may be considered together through the doctrine of tacking.

This can be important when a family or successive owners have occupied or maintained disputed property for decades.

Whether tacking is available depends upon the circumstances and applicable legal requirements.

Subsequent Rhode Island Supreme Court Decisions Citing Foisy

The significance of Foisy extends beyond the original dispute.

Subsequent Rhode Island Supreme Court decisions have cited Foisy when addressing adverse possession and related property rights.

O’Keefe v. York, 308 A.3d 983 (R.I. 2024)

In O’Keefe, the Rhode Island Supreme Court addressed adverse possession involving cotenants.

The Court explained that a claimant asserting adverse possession against a cotenant faces additional requirements concerning exclusion of the other cotenant’s rights.

The decision demonstrates that the relationship between the parties can affect the evidence required to establish adverse possession.

Urbonas v. Gullison, 337 A.3d 673 (R.I. 2025)

In Urbonas, the Supreme Court addressed boundary by acquiescence and prescriptive easement claims.

The Court distinguished the requirements for establishing an agreed boundary through acquiescence from those applicable to a prescriptive easement.

The decision illustrates that adverse possession, prescriptive easements, and boundary by acquiescence are distinct legal doctrines, even though disputes involving them may arise from similar patterns of property use.

Blechman v. Woodward, 352 A.3d 157 (R.I. 2026)

In Blechman, the Supreme Court addressed the hostility requirement in adverse possession and prescriptive easement claims.

The Court considered the significance of offers to purchase disputed land and acknowledgments of another person’s ownership.

The decision reinforces the importance of determining whether a claimant’s conduct was inconsistent with the record owner’s rights or instead recognized the owner’s superior title.

Desrochers v. Micheli, 357 A.3d 1048 (R.I. 2026)

In Desrochers, the Supreme Court again addressed the requirements for adverse possession, including hostility and the effect of permissive use.

The Court explained that permissive use does not satisfy the hostility requirement merely because it continues over time.

The decision also addressed the identification of disputed property and the evidence necessary to establish the claimed area with sufficient particularity.

Together, these decisions demonstrate the continuing importance of Rhode Island Supreme Court precedent in resolving adverse possession and boundary disputes.

Adverse Possession Compared With Prescriptive Easements and Boundary by Acquiescence

Property owners sometimes assume that longstanding use of neighboring land necessarily creates ownership rights.

However, Rhode Island recognizes different legal doctrines that may apply depending upon the circumstances.

Adverse possession concerns the acquisition of title to property through qualifying possession.

A prescriptive easement generally concerns acquiring a right to use another person’s property for a particular purpose without acquiring ownership of the land itself.

Boundary by acquiescence concerns circumstances in which adjoining property owners have recognized and accepted a particular boundary over the legally required period.

Each doctrine has distinct requirements and consequences.

Determining which claim may be appropriate requires examination of the deeds, surveys, historical use, communications between owners, and other relevant evidence.

Learn more about our Easements Practice and Real Estate Litigation Practice.

How Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC Handles Adverse Possession Litigation

Adverse possession litigation often involves a combination of legal research, historical investigation, title examination, surveys, witness testimony, and detailed factual analysis.

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC represents property owners asserting and defending adverse possession claims and related disputes concerning property boundaries, easements, encroachments, and ownership rights.

Our representation may include examination of recorded deeds and plans, investigation of historical property use, evaluation of witness testimony, analysis of surveys, preparation of pleadings, discovery, motion practice, trial, and appellate proceedings.

Our firm’s successful appellate representation in Foisy reflects its experience litigating contested real property claims and addressing the evidentiary and legal standards applicable to adverse possession.

Our attorneys recognize that these disputes can affect substantial property interests, the location of improvements, access rights, property values, and the ability of owners to use and develop their land.

We evaluate the particular circumstances of each matter and pursue legal strategies directed toward protecting our clients’ rights and interests.

Speak With a Rhode Island Adverse Possession Attorney

If you are involved in an adverse possession dispute, have discovered that a fence or improvement crosses a property line, or believe that longstanding possession may affect ownership of adjoining land, Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC can assist you in evaluating your legal options.

Our attorneys represent property owners in Rhode Island real estate litigation involving adverse possession, boundary disputes, easements, quiet title actions, encroachments, and related property claims.

Whether you are seeking to establish ownership rights or defend your property against an adverse possession claim, careful evaluation of the governing law and available evidence is important.

Contact Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC to discuss your property dispute.

Call 401-300-4055 or contact our attorneys online.

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC
1350 Division Road, Suite 102
West Warwick, Rhode Island 02879
Telephone: 401-300-4055

This article provides general information about Rhode Island adverse possession law and the reported appellate decision in Foisy. It does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of any adverse possession dispute depends upon the facts, applicable law, and evidence presented. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome in another matter.