|
View Case
|
|
Cited Cases
|
|
Citing Cases
|
|
Comment (0)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOUNDATION v. FOUR TWENTY CORP.
Superior Court of Rhode Island, WASHINGTON, SC.
Filed: September 11, 2012.
One acquires real property in hopes of being able to fully enjoy its benefits. To some, the benefits associated with ownership include shelter, privacy and protection; while to others property ownership may serve as a financial benefit. When drafting the Declaration of Independence, many of the Founders believed that the "guiding principle was that people come together to form governments in order to secure their rights to property—not to create an entity which will, itself, `take from the mouths of labor the bread it has earned.'" W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Our Ageless Constitution, Part III (1998). James Madison powerfully articulated the importance of property rights, stating, that "government is instituted to protect property of every sort... this being the end of government, that is not a just government,... nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest." Id. Regardless of the owner's intent, property ownership is a fundamental right that has been recognized over the past several hundred years Undoubtedly, since the initial ratification of the Constitution there has been many amendments made changing its actual content. In the past one-hundred years alone, the United States of America has amended its Constitution, thereby implementing changes ranging from the prohibition of slavery to the ability of women to vote. One of the most substantial constitutional changes regarding property rights is prescribed by the Fifth Amendment, passed in 1791 which states, "no person... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." Similarly, the Constitution of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, adopted in 1843, echoes this ideology in Article 1, Section 2, which states, "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." R.I. Const. art. I § 2. In accordance with the Constitutions, both the Rhode Island and Federal governments have set forth very few statutory provisions through which an owner of real property may be forced to relinquish their ownership rights. For instance, both the United States Constitution and the Rhode Island Constitution explicitly prescribe a municipality's ability to transfer land ownership rights through the process of eminent domain. Eminent domain is "the power of the State to take private property for public use...It is a right founded on the law of necessity which is inherent in sovereignty and essential to the existence of government." Twp. of W. Orange v. 769 Assocs., LLC, 172 N.J. 564, 571 (N.J. 2002). As prescribed by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Rhode Island Constitution echoes this sentiment in Article 1, Section 16, stating that "private property shall not be taken for public uses, without just compensation." R.I. Const. art I, §16. Although a state's eminent domain authority is not derived from a specific constitutional grant, its exercise is limited by the United States and Rhode Island Constitution. R.I. Econ. Dev. Corp. v. The Parking Co., LP, 892 A.2d. 87, 96 (R.I. 2006). Like the federal Constitution, the Rhode Island Constitution prescribes the limits the state has in its police power when exercising its right of eminent domain. The United States and Rhode Island Constitutions impose two limits on the state's eminent domain authority: 1) private property must be taken only for public uses, and; 2) the taking must be accompanied by just compensation. R.I. Econ. Dev. Corp., 892 A.2d at 96. The strict limitations granted to the states in using its eminent domain power clearly indicates the legislatures' recognition of the sanctity of property ownership rights. Alternatively, the doctrine of adverse possession may also compel an individual to relinquish their ownership rights in property. Adverse possession is a doctrine that allows "the ripening of hostile possession, under proper circumstances, into title by lapse of time." 3 American Jurisprudence 2d §2. Furthermore, "our society has made a policy determination that `all things should be used according to their nature and purpose and when an individual uses and preserves property `for a certain length of time, [he] has done a work beneficial to the community.'" Cahill v. Morrow, 11 A.3d 82, 87 (R.I. 2011)(citations omitted). Currently all fifty states have some type of statute regarding adverse possession, the elements of which vary depending on the jurisdiction. In Rhode Island, as prescribed under General Laws 1956 §34-7-1, to establish adverse possession, the claimant's possession must be "actual, open, notorious, hostile, under claim of right, continuous, exclusive... and establish indicia of adverse possession for a period of ten years." Anthony v. Searle, 681 A.2d 892, 897 (R.I. 1996) (citations omitted). In the instant case, neither eminent domain nor the doctrine of adverse possession would support the transfer of Plaintiff's property rights, nor has either party made such contentions. Therefore, the court is not able to rely on clearly enacted statutory provisions regarding the mandatory transfer of property rights. Rather, the court must make a factual determination regarding the appropriateness of a mandatory injunction. A
|
|
|
|
|