Supreme Court
Edgar Sepulveda, in his capacity as : No. 2024-28-Appeal. Trustee of the 7 Half Mile Road Living (PC 20-2432) Trust
v. :
John Buffum et al. :
John Buffum et al. : No. 2024-29-Appeal. (PC 20-554) v. :
Edgar Sepulveda. :
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or Email opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. Supreme Court
Edgar Sepulveda, in his capacity as : No. 2024-28-Appeal. Trustee of the 7 Half Mile Road Living (PC 20-2432) Trust
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
OPINION
Chief Justice Suttell, for the Court. “Good fences make good neighbors.”1
Unfortunately, on occasion, no fences make disputatious neighbors. Such is the case
in these consolidated appeals in which Edgar Sepulveda appeals from judgments in
favor of John Buffum and Angie Salem on: (1) Sepulveda’s claim for adverse
possession; and (2) Buffum and Salem’s claims for trespass and declaratory relief.2
The judgments directed Sepulveda to remove the driveway he installed on land
bordering his property located at 7 Half Mile Road in Barrington and the property
1 From “Mending Wall” by Robert Frost. 2 For purposes of clarity in these consolidated appeals, Edgar Sepulveda will be referred to as “Sepulveda.” John Buffum and Angie Salem, a married couple, will be collectively referred to as “Buffum and Salem.” No disrespect is intended. -1- of Buffum and Salem located at 5 Half Mile Road (the disputed area). Additionally,
the Superior Court judgments included an injunction prohibiting Sepulveda from
entering the disputed area. Before this Court, Sepulveda argues that the trial justice
erred in finding that Sepulveda’s exclusive use of the disputed area did not begin
until 2016 or 2017, falling short of the ten-year exclusive use element of adverse
possession. Sepulveda also contends that the trial justice reached this conclusion
erroneously by finding his testimony wanting in credibility.
These cases came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the
parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in these appeals should not
be summarily decided. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions
and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and that these
cases may be decided without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth
herein, we affirm the judgments of the Superior Court.
I
Facts and Travel
We derive the following facts from the two-day bench trial that was held
before the Superior Court on October 3 and 4, 2023. Sepulveda has resided in his
home at 7 Half Mile Road in Barrington, Rhode Island, since 2003. Abutting
Sepulveda’s property to the east is 5 Half Mile Road, where Buffum and Salem have
resided since July 2018. The parties dispute the ownership of an area within Buffum
-2- and Salem’s surveyed boundaries at 5 Half Mile Road. The disputed area includes
a bed of mulch, bushes, trees, and a small portion of Sepulveda’s reconfigured
circular driveway. Of note, Sepulveda testified that, prior to Buffum and Salem’s
purchase of their home, he made an offer to buy 5 Half Mile Road but did not tell
the realtor that he claimed ownership of the disputed area.
After Buffum and Salem purchased their property in July 2018, Buffum began
working on the yard. Eventually, he set out to clean up the overgrowth of vines and
bushes in the disputed area. After trimming and removing excess growth on and
around the bushes within the disputed area, Buffum continued to mulch the border
of his property from the street to his backyard fence line, including parts of the
disputed area. After Buffum completed this work, Sepulveda expressed his concern
with Salem, claiming that he owned and controlled the disputed area, prompting a
conversation about the property between Sepulveda and Buffum.
When Sepulveda and Buffum spoke, Sepulveda inquired as to why Buffum
had trimmed the bushes. In response, Buffum explained that he performed yardwork
on his own land, as confirmed by a land survey that he had completed on the
property. Buffum continued to explain that, according to the survey, not only were
the bushes that he had trimmed on his property, but part of Sepulveda’s newly
configured circular driveway was also on his property.
-3- According to Buffum’s testimony at trial, Sepulveda responded by saying that
“[he had] been maintaining this property exclusively and continuously for over ten
years.” Buffum testified that “it was very strange * * * that [Sepulveda] used those
exact words[,]” prompting Buffum to ask Sepulveda if he was “claiming adverse
possession[.]” In response, according to Buffum, Sepulveda simply reiterated that
he “maintained this land continuously, [and] exclusively, for over ten years.”3
Buffum went on to testify that he never saw Sepulveda doing landscaping in the
disputed area. Indeed, Buffum saw only one other person working in the disputed
area. Salem also testified that she had once witnessed Steven Rufino, Sepulveda’s
landscaper, working in the disputed area; she told him to leave and called the police.
Both Buffum and Salem testified that they have no personal knowledge of who
maintained the disputed area from 2003, when Sepulveda purchased 7 Half Mile
Road, to 2018, when they purchased 5 Half Mile Road.4
At trial, Sepulveda testified that he believed that the disputed area was part of
his property from 2003 to 2018. Sepulveda further testified that, during that time,
only he, Rufino, and Rufino’s employees maintained the disputed area. According
to Rufino’s testimony, Sepulveda is a good customer and a “good man” with whom
3 We note that, at the time of trial, Sepulveda had been involved in the real estate business for approximately twenty-four years, held a commercial real estate license, and was a member of the Appraisal Institute. 4 The immediate past owner of Buffum and Salem’s property is deceased. -4- he has shared a long professional relationship. Indeed, Rufino also testified that he
and his employees have been doing landscaping work in the disputed area since
2003. Additionally, Rufino installed Sepulveda’s new circular driveway, a portion
of which encroaches upon the disputed area. Rufino recalled that he may have
installed the driveway four years before trial but noted that he is “not good with
dates.”
Sepulveda testified that it was, in fact, about four years before trial when he
had Rufino construct his new driveway. During his testimony at trial, Sepulveda
recognized a photograph of his former driveway before the new construction and
identified a gray, rectangular boundary marker. Sepulveda further stated that he
moved his driveway into the space where the gray boundary marker was but
maintained that he did not move that marker. Additionally, Sepulveda discovered a
rod-and-cap or pin boundary marker protruding from his driveway, which he
removed and left “probably somewhere around [his] property * * *.”
The pin had been placed there as a boundary marker by David Gardner, a
surveyor. Indeed, in 2007, Sepulveda hired Gardner to perform a survey for him
that shows the boundary between the 7 Half Mile Road property and the 5 Half Mile
Road property. Sepulveda saw Gardner again in 2018 while he was performing a
survey for Buffum and Salem. Sepulveda testified that Gardner “probably” told him
that his driveway was encroaching on the 5 Half Mile Drive property.
-5- The transcript of Gardner’s deposition was admitted at trial, in which Gardner
explained that he completed a survey for Buffum and Salem and detailed his
interaction with Sepulveda during that survey project.5 Gardner confirmed that he
informed Sepulveda that his new driveway extended onto Buffum and Salem’s
property, to which Sepulveda commented that he thought his property line was
“further over.” Gardner could no longer locate the boundary monuments that he had
seen in 2007, when he performed the survey for Sepulveda. Consequently, Gardner
inserted a new steel pin at the property corner located on Sepulveda’s new gravel
driveway to mark the boundary between the two properties. This, according to
Gardner, showed that the driveway encroached on Buffum and Salem’s property.
Eventually, Buffum and Sepulveda had a conversation regarding the pin that
was inserted into Sepulveda’s new gravel driveway during which, according to
Buffum, Sepulveda stated that the pin could not remain there. About one week later,
Buffum noticed that the pin in Sepulveda’s driveway was gone. Later, Buffum
testified, he agreed to meet Sepulveda at a local Starbucks concerning the disputed
area but came away frustrated because Sepulveda continued to assert that he owned
the area by virtue of his alleged maintenance of the area. The meeting ended with
no resolution.
5 The parties stipulated to enter into evidence as an exhibit Gardner’s deposition because he was unavailable to testify at trial. -6- Buffum also testified that around Halloween one year, he and his wife noticed
that several decorations that they had affixed to a tree in the disputed area had been
removed and left on the ground. At trial, Sepulveda testified that he “probably did”
remove the Halloween decorations, contradicting a previous denial made in his
admissions.
On January 23, 2020, Buffum and Salem filed suit against Sepulveda for
trespass and seeking a declaratory judgment to establish “their exclusive right, title
and interest in their property at 5 Half Mile Road, Barrington, * * * the wrongful
encroachments by [Sepulveda], * * * [and] the lack of any right, title or interest by
[Sepulveda] in their property.” Later, on March 16, 2020, Sepulveda filed suit
against Buffum and Salem claiming ownership of an area of land by adverse
possession and seeking injunctive relief. These two cases were consolidated in the
Superior Court and were tried together during one jury-waived trial.
Ultimately, the trial justice issued a written decision in favor of Buffum and
Salem and against Sepulveda. The trial justice began his decision with credibility
assessments of each of the witnesses who testified at trial. He found that Sepulveda’s
credibility was “lessened” when he denied knowing the current whereabouts of the
missing boundary markers after stating that he had seen them. The trial justice
indicated that Sepulveda’s answers regarding the boundary marker and pins were
unresponsive, confrontational, and vague. Additionally, the trial justice found that
-7- Sepulveda was vague on how he exercised control over the disputed area or whether
his use was notorious, as required to prove adverse possession. The trial justice
concluded that Sepulveda’s reliability was questionable and remarked that “Mr.
Sepulveda’s lack of specifics, lack of paperwork to substantiate his testimony, and
his vague response to what Mr. Gardner told him of the encroachments lessened his
credibility considerably.” Conversely, the trial justice found Buffum to be “quite
credible.” The trial justice found Buffum to be consistent, detailed, and methodical.
Similarly, the trial justice found Gardner’s deposition testimony to be consistent and
credible.
In his decision, the trial justice continued with an explanation and analysis of
the elements of adverse possession. The trial justice ultimately found that
“Mr. Sepulveda claims he has acquired the disputed property by way of adverse possession because he has ‘been maintaining [the] property exclusively and continuously for over ten years.’ * * * Despite his claim, Mr. Sepulveda has not presented any credible evidence as to his use or possession of the disputed property prior to the construction of his driveway, which partially sits on said property. Therefore, this [c]ourt finds that Mr. Sepulveda’s use of the property started when a portion of his driveway was first built on the disputed area and not before that date.”
The trial justice also found that Sepulveda’s “new driveway was installed in 2016 or
2017,” marking the beginning of his use of the disputed area. As such, Sepulveda’s
-8- use lasted only three or four years and did not meet the ten years of use necessary to
successfully establish ownership by adverse possession.
In addition, the trial justice determined that “because Mr. Sepulveda
conclusively established * * * that he impermissibly intruded upon the
Buffum/Salem land but did not establish adverse possession, Buffum/Salem have
demonstrated that Mr. Sepulveda’s actions constitute[d] a trespass to land.”
Judgment entered on November 25, 2024. Therein, the trial justice entered: a
declaratory judgment of ownership for Buffum and Salem; judgment in favor of
Buffum and Salem on their trespass claim; and judgment against Sepulveda on his
claims of adverse possession and loss of use and enjoyment. The trial justice also
issued two injunctions; one requiring Sepulveda to “forthwith remove the driveway
that encroaches on the disputed area and replace the survey markers,” and the other
“barring Mr. Sepulveda from entering upon or using the disputed area.” These
now-consolidated appeals ensued.
II
Standard of Review
“It should be borne in mind that the instant case was tried before a trial justice
sitting without a jury; accordingly, we recall the basic principle of appellate
jurisprudence that ‘this Court views deferentially the factual findings of a trial justice
sitting in a nonjury case.’” Carrozza v. Voccola, 90 A.3d 142, 151 (R.I. 2014)
-9- (brackets omitted) (quoting Manchester v. Pereira, 926 A.2d 1005, 1011 (R.I.
2007)). “Consequently, we will not disturb a trial justice’s factual findings or
credibility determinations ‘unless they are clearly erroneous or the trial justice
misconceived or overlooked material evidence or the decision fails to do substantial
justice between the parties.’” Id. (deletions omitted) (quoting Cahill v. Morrow, 11
A.3d 82, 86 (R.I. 2011)).
Furthermore, this Court “give[s] great deference to the trial justice’s
determinations of credibility * * * because it was the trial justice who had the
opportunity to observe the witnesses’ live testimony and the witnesses’ demeanor.”
Anton v. Houze, 277 A.3d 695, 705 (R.I. 2022).
III
Discussion
On appeal, Sepulveda advances one principal argument, claiming that the trial
justice erred by “fail[ing] to properly consider the uncontested evidence in the
[r]ecord concerning the possession of the [d]isputed [a]rea from 2003 to 2018.”
Sepulveda argues that he and his landscaper Rufino were the only individuals to
maintain the disputed area from 2003 to 2018, and he points out that they were the
only individuals to testify to that fact at trial. Sepulveda highlights that Buffum and
Salem did not offer any evidence to contradict his testimony to that end.
Furthermore, Sepulveda maintains that the trial justice erroneously rejected the
- 10 - testimony of Sepulveda and Rufino and ascribes this rejection to “sweeping and
unsubstantiated credibility determinations.” Sepulveda argues that his testimony is
uncontradicted and that, therefore, it should not have been rejected by the trial
justice.
In response, Buffum and Salem argue that the trial justice was correct in
finding that Sepulveda and Rufino lacked credibility. Buffum and Salem submit that
“[c]ross-examination hoisted Sepulveda on his own petard.” They maintain that
Sepulveda and Rufino “were impeached, contradicted[,] and proven evasive.”
Specifically, Buffum and Salem point out that Sepulveda’s testimony regarding the
whereabouts of boundary markers and pins was “bizarrely non-responsive.”
Additionally, they argue that Sepulveda was impeached on inconsistencies between
his testimony at trial and his verified complaint and admissions. Buffum and Salem
also submit that Rufino’s testimony was biased rather than reliable because “Ruffino
[sic] regards Sepulveda as a good customer for whom he has worked on multiple
properties.”
Buffum and Salem further argue that Sepulveda knew where his property
boundary was and that his driveway encroached upon Buffum and Salem’s property.
They point out that Sepulveda hired Gardner to perform survey work on his property
in 2007. The resulting survey identified the boundary between Sepulveda’s land and
the land that Buffum and Salem would purchase years later, and Gardner’s work
- 11 - revealed existing boundary markers on the land that would later be removed.
Buffum and Salem recall that Gardner testified that he informed Sepulveda that his
driveway encroached upon Buffum and Salem’s land—a fact that, at trial, Sepulveda
admitted “probably” happened. Buffum and Salem also indicate that Sepulveda
never produced any records or documentation of his maintenance of the disputed
area.
The trial justice found Sepulveda’s testimony of limited credibility. He found
that “Mr. Sepulveda’s lack of specifics, lack of paperwork to substantiate his
testimony, and his vague response to what Mr. Gardner told him of the
encroachments lessened his credibility considerably.” As the trial justice began his
analysis of the exclusive-use element required to prove adverse possession, he
reasoned that
“Mr. Sepulveda has not presented any credible evidence as to his use or possession of the disputed property prior to the construction of his driveway, which partially sits on said property. Therefore, this Court finds that Mr. Sepulveda’s use of the property started when a portion of his driveway was first built on the disputed area and not before that date.”
This analysis shows that the trial justice weighed Sepulveda’s low credibility in
determining whether the exclusive-use element of adverse possession was proven.
In order to acquire land by adverse possession, “[a] claimant must prove
actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive use of the property under
- 12 - a claim of right for at least a period of ten years.” O’Keefe v. York, 308 A.3d 983,
991 (R.I. 2024) (brackets omitted) (quoting Union Cemetery Burial Society of North
Smithfield v. Foisy, 292 A.3d 1205, 1214 (R.I. 2023)). “The party asserting title by
adverse possession must establish the required elements by strict proof, that is, proof
by clear and convincing evidence.” Id. (quoting Union Cemetery Burial Society of
North Smithfield, 292 A.3d at 1214). Landscaping and yard maintenance may
suffice to demonstrate open and notorious use of land. Union Cemetery Burial
Society of North Smithfield, 292 A.3d at 1217-18. Sepulveda’s own witness
testimony and that of Rufino constituted the only evidence offered to prove
Sepulveda’s claim of exclusive use through alleged maintenance of the disputed area
for at least ten years. Considering his dubious credibility, Sepulveda was unable to
prove exclusive use.
As this Court has consistently held, credibility determinations rest “within the
sound discretion of the trial justice.” Leon v. Krikorian, 271 A.3d 985, 991 (R.I.
2022) (quoting Guertin v. Guertin, 870 A.2d 1011, 1020 (R.I. 2005)). We “give
great deference to the trial justice’s determinations of credibility * * * because it was
the trial justice who had the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ live testimony and
the witnesses’ demeanor.” Anton, 277 A.3d at 705. Indeed, in this case, the trial
justice did not find Sepulveda to be credible, and so his testimony at trial was
insufficient to prove his exclusive use of the disputed area for at least ten years. We
- 13 - defer to the trial justice’s assessment of credibility, as pronounced in his
well-reasoned decision.6
As discussed supra, Sepulveda also argued that his testimony regarding his
use of the disputed area from 2003 to 2018 was uncontradicted. This argument
asserts that there was no other testimony at trial or other evidence that showed that
Sepulveda did not exclusively use the disputed area from 2003 until 2018.
Sepulveda offered no other evidence to prove his claim, other than the witness
testimony of Rufino. When faced with uncontradicted witness testimony and
questions of credibility, this Court has held that “a witness’s uncontroverted, positive
testimony ordinarily is conclusive upon the trier of fact. Nevertheless, this Court
has held ‘that a trial justice may refuse to accept the uncontroverted testimony of
proffered witnesses’ under certain circumstances.” Pelletier v. Laureanno, 46 A.3d
28, 39 (R.I. 2012) (quoting Paradis v. Heritage Loan and Investment Co., 701 A.2d
812, 813 (R.I. 1997) (mem.)).
“For example, positive uncontroverted testimony may be rejected if it contains
inherent improbabilities or contradictions, which alone, or in connection with other
6 We note that Sepulveda’s testimony that he made an offer to purchase 5 Half Mile Road but did not indicate his ownership of the disputed area might be construed by a factfinder as evidence of his recognition of the superior title of the record owner of said property, and thus it might constitute an independent ground for affirming the judgment. See Cahill v. Morrow, 11 A.3d 82, 90 (R.I. 2011). This issue was not raised in the Superior Court, and we decline to address it on appeal. - 14 - circumstances, tend to contradict it.” Pelletier, 46 A.3d at 39 (brackets omitted)
(quoting Laganiere v. Bonte Spinning Co., 103 R.I. 191, 194, 236 A.2d 256, 258
(1967)). “Such testimony may also be disregarded if it lacks credence or is unworthy
of belief, especially if the testimony is that of a party to the litigation or of an
interested witness.” Id. (deletion omitted) (quoting Laganiere, 103 R.I. at 194-95,
236 A.2d at 258). “Rejection on credibility grounds may not, however, be arbitrary
or capricious, nor may it be left to the whim of a trier of fact.” Id. (deletion and
brackets omitted) (quoting Laganiere, 103 R.I. at 195, 236 A.2d at 258). “Moreover,
a trier of fact who disregards a witness’s positive testimony because in his or her
judgment it lacks credibility should clearly state, even though briefly, the reasons
which underlie his or her rejection.” Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Laganiere, 103
R.I. at 195, 236 A.2d at 258).
In this case, the trial justice’s findings were sufficient to reject the credibility
of Sepulveda and Rufino. The trial justice clearly stated that Rufino lacked
credibility due to bias, and he reasoned that Rufino “was concerned about attempting
to keep Mr. Sepulveda, his customer, satisfied with his testimony.” Rufino noted
that Sepulveda was a “good man,” and that the two had a long-standing business
relationship. This supports the trial justice’s finding of bias because Rufino clearly
has an interest in providing testimony that is beneficial to Sepulveda. The trial
- 15 - justice also noted that Rufino was “extremely unsure” of dates, produced no
paperwork, and was unreliable.
Similarly, the trial justice found that “Mr. Sepulveda’s lack of specifics, lack
of paperwork to substantiate his testimony, and his vague response to what Mr.
Gardner told him of the encroachments lessened his credibility considerably.” The
trial justice continued to reason that “[Sepulveda] was just as vague about how he
exercised control over the area or whether his use was notorious as well as about
whether he had been shown the [G]ardner survey before suit commenced.” The trial
justice detailed his rationale in arriving at the conclusion that Sepulveda lacked
credibility. We perceive no cause to disturb his findings in that regard.
Therefore, we hold that the trial justice acted well within his discretion in
assessing credibility. The trial justice was the factfinder present to observe and
evaluate the live witness testimony, and his inferences therefrom are informative.
We are satisfied, therefore, that his findings were not clearly erroneous or born out
of evidentiary misconceptions, or that they failed to provide justice between the
parties.
IV
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgments of the Superior Court.
The papers in this case may be remanded to that tribunal.
- 16 - STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE Licht Judicial Complex 250 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903
OPINION COVER SHEET
Edgar Sepulveda, in his capacity as Trustee of the 7 Half Mile Road Living Trust v. John Buffum et al. Title of Case John Buffum et al. v. Edgar Sepulveda. No. 2024-28-Appeal. (PC 20-2432) Case Number No. 2024-29-Appeal. (PC 20-554)
Date Opinion Filed May 9, 2025
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Justices Long, JJ.
Written By Chief Justice Paul A. Suttell
Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court
Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Jeffrey A. Lanphear
For Plaintiff/Defendant:
Armando E. Batastini, Esq. Attorney(s) on Appeal For Defendants/Plaintiffs:
Harris K. Weiner, Esq.