## Facts

- The dispute concerned title to a 25-by-100-foot parcel in Bogota, New Jersey (Lot 10, Block 98).
- In 1962, the Borough acquired Lot 10 by in rem tax foreclosure; the lot was vacant and remained unimproved, unused, and not dedicated to public use.
- In 1965, James and Mary Devins bought the adjacent residence (Lots 11 and 11A) and also received a quitclaim deed to Lot 10 from their sellers.
- A chain-link fence enclosed Lot 10 and aligned with fencing around the Devins’ residence, creating the appearance of common ownership.
- A barbecue pit existed on Lot 10 before the Devins purchased; after 1965, the Devins used Lot 10 for parking and recreation and later installed a basketball backboard and erected a shed.
- In 1985, the Devins requested that the Borough concede title based on adverse possession; the Borough refused.
- The Devins filed suit seeking a declaration that they had acquired title by adverse possession.

## Issues

1. Whether adverse possession may run against municipally owned real property that is neither dedicated to nor used for a public purpose.
2. Whether historical governmental immunity principles (including nullum tempus) bar adverse possession when a municipality holds land in a non-public, proprietary capacity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division’s affirmance of summary judgment for the Borough.
- The court held that municipally owned property neither dedicated to nor used for a public purpose is subject to acquisition by adverse possession.
- The matter was remanded to the Chancery Division to determine whether the Devins satisfied the statutory elements of adverse possession and to address tax-related consequences (including back taxes).

## Legal Principles

- Municipal ownership alone does not categorically immunize land from adverse possession.
- A municipality remains protected from adverse possession as to land dedicated to or used for public purposes.
- For municipal land held outside public use, the rationales for adverse possession (certainty of title, productive use, and consequences for inaction) support applying the doctrine similarly to private ownership.
- Courts may treat governmental immunity doctrines as limited when the government acts in a non-sovereign, proprietary role.
- Even when adverse possession is legally available against a municipality, the claimant must still prove the statutory elements (including open and notorious, continuous, exclusive, and hostile possession for the required period).

## Conclusion

The court recognized adverse possession against a municipality for land not dedicated to or used for a public purpose, reversed summary judgment for the Borough, and remanded for application of the adverse possession elements and related tax issues.


Devins v. Borough of Bogota, 124 N.J. 570, 592 A.2d 199 (N.J. 1991)