New Hampshire Adverse Possession: Decades-Old Carport Earns Title, but Guest Parking Fails to Establish Ownership
Why one carport supported an adverse possession claim and another did not
The New Hampshire Supreme Court recently addressed an adverse possession dispute involving an encroaching carport, a shared driveway, and competing claims to ownership of a portion of neighboring property. The Court upheld adverse possession of land occupied by a carport that had encroached for decades, but rejected a claim based largely on intermittent guest parking after a second carport was removed.
Background
Thomas and Gosselin own neighboring properties sharing a driveway located on the Gosselin Property.
Two carports became central to the dispute. Carport 1, attached to Thomas's house, has encroached on the shared driveway since at least 1969, and owners of the Thomas Property and their guests have parked there continuously since.
Carport 2 was attached to Carport 1 and located entirely on the shared driveway. It first existed as early as the 1950s, was removed, and reappeared in 1993. Thomas parked in Carport 2 from approximately 1993 to 2001.
In 2002, Carport 2 collapsed from snow damage and was removed. After the removal, Thomas's guests parked in the area where Carport 2 stood until at least 2019, in a different orientation than before.
Also in 2002, Gosselin's parents granted Thomas temporary construction and septic easements, formalized in a written agreement that makes no reference to any prior permission regarding either carport. The related survey noted Carport 1's boundary with the notation "Encroachment Carport Over Lot Line" and was recorded in the registry of deeds. The parties maintained an amicable relationship until 2018, when it deteriorated.
Superior Court
Thomas filed claims alleging adverse possession of the areas beneath both carports. Following a two-day bench trial, the Superior Court concluded that Thomas had adversely possessed "the portions of the [d]riveway beneath Carports 1 and 2." Gosselin appealed.
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court analyzed the Carport 1 and Carport 2 claims separately, focusing primarily on two elements: whether the twenty-year period had already run and whether the use was open and visible enough to put the owner on notice of the adverse claim. The two carports presented starkly different facts on both points, and the court reached opposite results on each.
For Carport 1, Gosselin argued that Thomas abandoned her claim when she recorded the 2002 plan, which depicted the area as Gosselin Property. The court disagreed.
Carport 1 had existed since at least 1969, meaning the owners of the Thomas Property had already satisfied the twenty-year period before the 2002 plan was recorded. A carport physically attached to Thomas's house had been sitting in plain sight on Gosselin's land for more than twenty years. Title had vested. Nothing recorded in 2002 could undo it. The court also rejected the implied-permission argument, reasoning that because Carport 1 existed prior to Gosselin's purchase of their property, "the subsequent relationship between the parties has little bearing on a pre-existing structure." The court affirmed.
For Carport 2, the result was the opposite. The relevant iteration stood only from 1993 to 2002, nine years, well short of twenty. Where Carport 1 had cleared the twenty-year bar before the 2002 plan was recorded, Carport 2 had not. The plan depicted the Carport 2 area as Gosselin property without noting any encroachment, and Gosselin could reasonably have read that as Thomas's acknowledgment of their ownership.
After the collapse, Thomas did not rebuild. Less-than-daily parking by Thomas's guests in a different orientation than before was not the kind of open, visible use that would tell an owner someone else is claiming the land. The court reversed.
Key Takeaways
The contrasting outcomes turned principally on whether the twenty-year period had run before Thomas took actions that undermined her Carport 2 claim. An encroaching structure standing openly for more than twenty years vested title regardless of what a later-recorded plan said. But where the period had not yet run, the claimant's own recorded plan depicting the disputed area as the neighbor's property, combined with the structure's removal and only intermittent guest parking afterward, defeated the claim entirely.
Thomas v. Gosselin, No. 2025-0093 (non-precedential order) (N.H. Sep. 3, 2026).
For assistance with adverse possession, prescription, easements, roads and other access issues, real estate and civil litigation, please contact Alfano Law at (603) 856-8411 or by filling out our Contact Form. The firm offers free or low-cost initial consultations for most matters.