## Facts

- A 1942 will created successive interests in residential property in Concord, Massachusetts, with a remainder to the Town of Concord if the named beneficiary died without surviving children.
- The beneficiary later died without issue; the town thereby held record title as remainderman but did not realize it for many years.
- From about 1965 until his death in 1996, Joseph Frazier remained in possession and treated the property as his own, including renting it to tenants and maintaining it.
- Frazier devised the property to Albert J. Lawrence.
- In 1997, counsel for Frazier’s estate notified the town of its potential record interest and Lawrence’s claim that Frazier had acquired title by adverse possession.
- The town initiated an eminent domain taking to clear title but paid Lawrence no compensation, asserting it already owned the property.
- Lawrence sued for damages under the Massachusetts eminent domain damages statute, G.L. c. 79, § 14.

## Issues

1. Whether a record owner’s lack of knowledge that it owns the property defeats an adverse possession claim by negating the “open and notorious” (or adverse) element.
2. Whether, if the claimant established title by adverse possession, the town’s eminent domain taking required payment of damages to the claimant under G.L. c. 79, § 14.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the judgment for the town and remanded.
- The court held that the town’s ignorance of its ownership interest did not prevent Frazier’s possession from being open and notorious or otherwise adverse.
- Accepting that Frazier’s possession was exclusive, continuous, and adverse for at least twenty years, the court concluded title vested in Frazier by adverse possession and passed to Lawrence by devise.
- Because Lawrence held title when the town took the property by eminent domain, the case was remanded to determine the damages owed to Lawrence.

## Legal Principles

- Adverse possession in Massachusetts turns on the possessor’s objective use of the land; the record owner’s subjective ignorance of its own title does not defeat the “open and notorious” requirement.
- “Open and notorious” possession requires visible, non-secretive occupation consistent with ownership such that a reasonable owner exercising ordinary diligence would be on notice of an adverse claim.
- Municipalities are subject to adverse possession on the same terms as private owners absent a specific statutory bar; delayed discovery of record title does not nullify otherwise qualifying possession.
- Once the statutory period runs and the elements are met, title by adverse possession vests; a later eminent domain taking from the vested owner requires compensation under G.L. c. 79, § 14.

## Conclusion

The court held that a town’s lack of awareness that it held record title does not defeat adverse possession where the occupier’s use was sufficiently open and owner-like for the statutory period, and it remanded for determination of eminent domain damages owed to the titleholder.


Lawrence v. Town of Concord, 788 N.E.2d 546 (Mass. 2003)