Paine v. Sexton

Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2015 · Property

88 Mass. App. Ct. 389 (2015)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyAdverse possessionColor of titlewoodlandwild landseasonal usecommercial campgroundnotice

Facts

The plaintiffs and their predecessors had operated the locus as a commercial campground since about 1958. They cleared campsites, built roadways, a house, toilet facilities, and an office, enlarged parking, added recreational areas, posted no-trespassing signs, controlled entry by charging campers, and advertised the campground, while leaving substantial wooded areas in a natural state. The property was not fully enclosed and was not reduced to cultivation. To extend possession beyond areas of actual use, the plaintiffs relied on seven recorded deeds that referred to Wellfleet assessors' maps and, in most instances, also contained metes and bounds or abutter-based descriptions.

Issue

Whether the plaintiffs' seasonal but extensive operation of a commercial campground on predominantly woodland was sufficient to establish adverse possession even though the property was not fully enclosed or cultivated, and whether the deeds on which they relied were sufficiently descriptive to support color of title for portions not actually used.

Rule

For wild or woodland, the strict rule is an application of the general adverse possession rule: the occupancy and use must be sufficiently pronounced, in light of the land's character, to place the lawful owner on notice that another person is occupying the land under an apparent claim of right. Seasonal use may suffice. Under color of title, adverse possession extends from the part actually occupied to the entire premises described in the claimant's deed, and assessor's plans may provide a definite and accurate property description.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

For twenty-four years, Lena Ortiz has run a seasonal maple-syrup tourism site on heavily wooded land outside Burlington, Vermont, believing it was within her family's tract. Each spring she opens marked walking paths, posts fee signs at the entrance, maintains a small sales shed and gravel parking area, and removes nonpaying visitors, but most of the acreage remains forested and unfenced.

If the record owner sues to quiet title, what is the strongest argument that Lena can establish adverse possession of the portions she actually used?

Explanation. For wild or woodland, the decisive question is not whether the land was fully enclosed or cultivated, but whether the claimant's occupation was sufficiently pronounced, in light of the land's character, to place the true owner on notice of occupancy under an apparent claim of right. Visible commercial use, improvements, controlled access, and exclusion of nonpaying entrants can satisfy that standard, and seasonal use may be adequate.