Edgar Sepulveda, in his capacity as Trustee of the 7 Half Mile Road Living Trust v. John Buffum

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

v. :

John Buffum et al. :

John Buffum et al. : No. 2024-29-Appeal.
(PC 20-554)
v. :

Edgar Sepulveda. :

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.