## Facts

- Two sisters became cotenants of a parcel after their father died intestate; their mother held a one-third interest and each child, including the sisters, held a one-sixth interest.
- The mother later executed a deed to Theresa O’Connor and her husband purporting to convey all her interest; it conveyed only the mother’s one-third interest (and any after-acquired interest), not the other children’s shares.
- O’Connor believed she owned the entire parcel and used it as her own by maintaining it, paying taxes and insurance, and treating it as part of her yard.
- Other siblings conveyed their one-sixth interests to O’Connor, leaving O’Connor with a five-sixths record interest and Dorothy Larocque with a one-sixth record interest.
- Larocque did not contribute to taxes or maintenance and made little to no use of the property for years, but continued to assert her one-sixth interest.
- In 1987, O’Connor asked Larocque to sign a quitclaim deed; Larocque refused.
- O’Connor filed a quiet title action seeking to obtain Larocque’s one-sixth interest by adverse possession (and alternatively on equitable grounds).

## Issues

1. Whether O’Connor proved by clear and convincing evidence that she adversely possessed her cotenant sister’s one-sixth interest, including conduct amounting to an ouster or notice sufficient to overcome the presumption that one cotenant’s possession is not adverse to another.
2. Whether evidence of family acrimony, prior disputes, and a request for a quitclaim deed established the required notice or ouster between cotenants.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment quieting title in O’Connor.
- The court held O’Connor failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, adverse possession against a cotenant because she did not establish ouster or the required actual or constructive notice of a hostile claim.
- The case was remanded with direction to render judgment consistent with the conclusion that Larocque retained her one-sixth interest.

## Legal Principles

- Adverse possession requires clear and convincing proof of actual, open and notorious, exclusive, continuous, and hostile possession for the statutory period.
- Between cotenants, possession by one is presumed to be possession for all; the claimant must rebut this presumption with evidence amounting to an ouster.
- To show ouster, the claimant must prove acts unequivocally inconsistent with cotenancy and that the nonpossessing cotenant had actual notice of the hostile claim or is chargeable with constructive notice because the acts clearly signal exclusion.
- Paying taxes, insuring, maintaining, improving, or using the land alone—especially under a mistaken belief of sole ownership—generally does not, without more, establish ouster or hostile notice as against a cotenant.
- General hostility between family members or prior litigation over other property cannot substitute for specific evidence that the claimant repudiated the cotenant’s rights in the particular parcel.
- A request that a cotenant sign a quitclaim deed may reflect efforts to clear title and does not, by itself, establish the notice or continuous hostile possession required for adverse possession against a cotenant.

## Conclusion

Because O’Connor’s maintenance and use of the property, family conflict, and the quitclaim request did not clearly and unequivocally repudiate Larocque’s cotenancy or provide sufficient actual or constructive notice of a hostile claim for the statutory period, O’Connor did not acquire Larocque’s one-sixth interest by adverse possession, and quiet title in O’Connor was improper.


O’Connor v. Larocque, 302 Conn. 562, 31 A.3d 1 (Conn. 2011)