Latest revision |
Your text |
Line 4: |
Line 4: |
| |date=November 1, 2011 | | |date=November 1, 2011 |
| |subject=Property | | |subject=Property |
| |facts=*In 1971, Mr. Perkowski died intestate.
| |
| *At the time, Perkowski owned a vacant lot in Connecticut.
| |
| *A 1/3 interest in the lot went to Perkowski's widow while a 1/6 interest went to each of the 4 children
| |
| *However, the widow mistakenly believed that she had inherited everything (i.e., the whole lot)
| |
| *Based on the said assumption, the widow conveyed the entire lot to her daughter & son-in-law (the daughter's husband) "O'Connor" in 1980
| |
| *Later in 1987, the daughter O'Connor realized that her mother had only a 1/3 interest (2/6) in the lot
| |
| *'''Larocque = a sister of O'Connor'''
| |
| *O'Connor wanted to convince Larocque to hand over her share of the land to O'Connor
| |
| *Another sister & the surviving spouse of another conveyed their interests to O'Connor; in other words, 2 siblings handed over 2 * (1/6) interests to O'Connor
| |
| *However, Larocque refused to hand over her interest to her sister O'Connor & husband
| |
| *Consequently, O'Connor had a 5/6 interest in the lot while Larocque had a 1/6 interest in the lot
| |
| *
| |
| *
| |
| *
| |
| *
| |
| *
| |
| *
| |
| *
| |
| |procedural_history=*O'Connor sued Larocque in state superior court to quiet title.
| |
| *Larocque counter-claimed against adverse possession by means of a [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/tenancy-in-common tenancy in common]
| |
| *O'Connor won in the bench trial
| |
| *
| |
| *
| |
| |issues=Must a [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/cotenancy co-tenant] in a tenancy in common prove that she ousted the other co-tenants from the land to obtain sole ownership by adverse possession?
| |
| |arguments=O'Connor contended that she had acquire Larocque's interest by adverse possession.
| |
| |holding=In a tenancy in common, a co-tenant must prove that she ousted the other co-tenants from the land to obtain sole ownership by land.
| |
| |judgment=Reversed
| |
| |reasons=Judge Zarella: There's a strong presumption against adverse possession of a tenancy in common.
| |
| |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link |
| |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/o-connor-v-larocque | | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/o-connor-v-larocque |