## Facts

- The Town of Waterville obtained title to a 1.2-acre parcel in 1935 through a mortgage-related arrangement connected to public assistance to the prior owner.
- In 1947, Royal W. Jarvis purchased over 200 acres surrounding the parcel on three sides; the fourth side bordered a public road.
- From 1947 to 1986, Jarvis used the parcel for rural/agricultural purposes, including grazing cattle and horses, parking vehicles, staging a logging operation, and storing slab wood.
- Jarvis posted “No Trespassing” signs and enclosed the parcel with fencing integrated with his surrounding land; his use and assertions of control were visible from the adjacent road.
- On May 7, 1986, the Town conveyed the parcel to Hubert Gillespie by quitclaim deed.
- After the conveyance, Gillespie removed Jarvis’s “No Trespassing” signs; Jarvis replaced them and built a wooden fence.
- Jarvis filed a declaratory-judgment action seeking title by adverse possession (and alternatively a prescriptive easement); Gillespie denied the claim and asserted statutory immunity for municipal land “given to a public use” under 12 V.S.A. § 462.
- The trial court ruled for Jarvis, finding adverse possession proven and concluding the parcel was not devoted to public use; Gillespie appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Jarvis’s long-term rural/agricultural uses and acts of exclusion established open, notorious, hostile, and continuous possession for the statutory period.
2. Whether 12 V.S.A. § 462 barred adverse possession because the parcel had been owned by a municipality as land “given to a public use.”

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the judgment quieting title in Jarvis.
- The court held Jarvis’s activities and assertions of control constituted open, notorious, hostile, and continuous possession for more than fifteen years.
- The court held 12 V.S.A. § 462 did not apply because the parcel was not “given to a public use” while owned by the Town.

## Legal Principles

- Adverse possession requires open, notorious, hostile, and continuous possession of another’s property for at least fifteen years.
- Possession is sufficiently open and notorious when the claimant’s acts would put a person of ordinary prudence on notice of the claim.
- “Hostility” does not require ill will; it requires an intent to claim the land and treat it as one’s own.
- “Continuous” possession does not require constant physical presence; the pattern of use is evaluated in light of how an average owner would use similar land.
- The sufficiency of adverse-possession acts depends on the character of the property; ordinary rural/agricultural uses may satisfy the elements when consistent with typical ownership.
- Municipal ownership alone does not trigger 12 V.S.A. § 462; the exemption applies only to land actually devoted or dedicated to a public use, not land merely held by a town without public use or plans for such use.

## Conclusion

Jarvis acquired title by adverse possession because his long-term, visible rural uses and acts of exclusion satisfied Vermont’s elements when measured against the property’s character, and the parcel was not protected by the statutory exemption for land devoted to public use.


Jarvis v. Gillespie, 155 Vt. 633, 587 A.2d 981 (Vt. 1991)