## Facts

- Sellers James and Marie Conklin contracted to sell a residence in Ridgewood, New Jersey, to buyers Richard and Geraldine Davi.
- The buyers refused to close, alleging title defects and misrepresentations.
- A central dispute involved a portion of the premises the sellers claimed only through adverse possession, without a deed from the record owner.
- The sellers sued for specific performance; the buyers counterclaimed for rescission and return of the down payment.
- Before trial, the sellers abandoned specific performance, leaving only the buyers’ rescission counterclaim.
- At the close of the buyers’ evidence, the trial court granted the sellers’ motion for judgment and dismissed the rescission claim.
- The Appellate Division reversed and directed entry of judgment for the buyers on rescission, without remand.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether an appellate court may direct entry of judgment for the non-moving party after reversing a trial court’s grant of judgment at the close of the opponent’s case, without remanding to allow the moving party to present evidence.
2. Whether a contract’s requirement of marketable (and insurable) title is satisfied when part of the property is held solely by adverse possession, and what proof is required to establish such title as marketable.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the trial court erred in granting judgment for the sellers at the close of the buyers’ case.
- The Supreme Court held the Appellate Division erred by ordering judgment for the buyers without a remand.
- The case was remanded for a new trial so the sellers could present evidence.
- On the merits, the Court held that title based on adverse possession can be marketable, but only if the vendor clearly proves the elements of adverse possession.

## Legal Principles

- When a motion for judgment is made at the close of an opponent’s case, reversal of an erroneously granted motion generally requires remand because the movant is entitled to present evidence if the motion is denied.
- A land-sale contract ordinarily implies an obligation to convey marketable title, but does not require perfect record title unless the contract expressly demands record title.
- Title may be marketable even if it rests in part on adverse possession, provided the adverse possession is clearly proved by the party relying on it.
- Marketability turns on whether the title, as proven, would reasonably expose the purchaser to litigation or hazard in defending ownership.

## Conclusion

The court required a new trial because the sellers were denied the opportunity to present their evidence after reversal of a judgment entered at the close of the buyers’ case, and it clarified that adverse-possession ownership can satisfy a marketable-title obligation only when the adverse possession is clearly established.


Conklin v. Davi, 76 N.J. 468, 388 A.2d 598 (N.J. 1978)