Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-16-7 (2026)

Presumption of lost grant by adverse possession

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Open, adverse, exclusive, and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment by the plaintiff, or by his or her predecessors in title or both the plaintiff and predecessors together of the real estate or his, her, or their interest therein described in the complaint, for a period of at least ten (10) years, shall raise the rebuttable presumption in law and in fact of a lost grant, properly executed and delivered, effective to cure the defect or defects in plaintiff’s title, as set forth in the complaint and/or to remove the cloud thereon, as it concerns any party named or referred to in the cause.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1976–2010 · leading case: Sleboda v. Heirs at Law of Harris, 508 A.2d 652 (R.I. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sleboda v. Heirs at Law of Harris, 508 A.2d 652 (R.I. 1986). · cites it 14× “The plaintiffs asserted in support of their claim that they had been in actual, open, notorious, continuous, and exclusive possession of the property under claim of right for a period in excess of ten years, as required by §§ 34-16-7,-8 and G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 34-7-1.”

Costa v. Silva, 996 A.2d 607 (R.I. 2010). · cites it 3× “The defendant asserts that she has met the statutory requirements of adverse possession that are set forth in § 34-16-7 and that were specifically alluded to in Sleboda.”

Locke v. O'BRIEN, 610 A.2d 552 (R.I. 1992). · cites it 2× “" Section 34-16-7 provided in pertinent part as follows: "Presumption of lost grant by adverse possession.”

Merrill Post No. 16 Am. Legion v. Heirs of Smith, 360 A.2d 110 (R.I. 1976). · cites it 2× “Those allegations, however, although obviously intended to bring its case within the purview of §34-16-7 2 are barren of particularized factual support and fail to set forth any specific facts that would be admissible in evidence.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.