What You Need to Know

• The Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment quieting title in the neighbors' favor, holding that a fence standing continuously on the boundary for more than thirty years supported their adverse-possession claim.
• The court reaffirmed that a fence is generally treated as clear, overt possession and serves as prima facie evidence of the elements of adverse possession.
• The decision also emphasizes the unforgiving deadlines of post-trial reconsideration motions under N.J. Rule 4:49-2.

Introduction

In Heller v. DiSylvestro, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2120 (App. Div. 2026), the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment quieting title to a strip of disputed land in favor of the plaintiff homeowners based on adverse possession. The dispute centered on a wooden fence that had separated two Ventnor, New Jersey properties at the rear boundary since at least 1984. The Court's analysis underscores a practical theme for property owners and their counsel: a visible, long-standing fence can establish ownership of the land it encloses.  Finally, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the defendant’s reconsideration motion as untimely.

The Property Dispute

Sam Heller and Alice Heller (the "Hellers") owned a residential property in Ventnor, New Jersey, which they purchased in 2004. Gail A. DiSylvestro (“DiSylvestro”) purchased the property adjacent to the Hellers in 2017. The two parcels shared a rear boundary separated by a wooden fence that had been in place since at least July 1984.

When the Hellers bought their property in 2004, they obtained a survey depicting the fence on the border of their back yard. In 2009, they replaced portions of it under a municipal permit.

In 2019 and 2021, DiSylvestro obtained surveys indicating that a portion of the Hellers' fence encroached about eight feet onto her property. In November 2023, she removed the existing fence and installed a new one several feet onto what the Hellers contended was their land (the "disputed land"). The disputed land was also subject to a ten-foot-wide utility easement established in 1971.

On April 19, 2024, the Hellers sued to quiet title to the disputed land, claiming ownership by adverse possession based on continuous, open, exclusive, and notorious use for more than thirty years when "tacking" of the time their predecessors in title had used the land is counted. DiSylvestro responded that the fence sat on the property line, that any encroachment was minor, and that any use was permissive because of the utility easement.

The Trial Court's Reasoning and Holding

On May 27, 2025, the trial court granted summary judgment to the Hellers, quieting title to the disputed land based on adverse possession under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-30 and dismissing all counterclaims with prejudice. The judge found that "fences, by their very nature, are generally considered to constitute clear and overt possession of property, signaling ownership to the community." The court then concluded that the undisputed record showed the fence had been a continuous boundary demarcation for more than thirty years before DiSylvestro removed it in November 2023, and that the neighbors' certifications confirmed the possession was well-established, visible, and notorious throughout that period.

On July 9, 2025, DiSylvestro moved for reconsideration, arguing that the Order dated May 27, 2025 was interlocutory as the Order did not contain a metes and bounds description of the property awarded such that it could be recorded in the County Clerk’s Office. The trial court found the Order was final and, without reaching the merits, denied the motion as time-barred because it was filed outside the twenty-day period for reconsideration of final judgments set by N.J. Rule 4:49-2. DiSylvestro appealed.

The Appellate Division's Analysis

The Appellate Division affirmed both orders, addressing in turn whether the reconsideration motion was timely and whether summary judgment on adverse possession was properly granted.

As to DiSylvestro’s argument that the May 27, 2025 Order was interlocutory because the order lacked a precise legal description of the awarded land and thus was not final and could be reconsidered, the Appellate Division rejected same. The Order was final because it decided all remaining claims and was sufficiently definitive in that it defined the disputed land as the area up to the fence line as it existed before the fence was moved in November 2023. It then held the Order had to include a metes and bounds description or be in recordable form to be final and noted that DiSylvestro cited no governing law requiring such a description. Finally, because the Order was final, the twenty-day deadline for reconsideration of N.J. Rule 4:49-2 applied, and the trial judge lacked discretion to extend that period. The motion, filed forty-three days after the Order, was therefore time-barred.

On the merits, the court found no error in the granting of summary judgment. It concluded that the undisputed evidence established hostile, continuous, open, and exclusive possession by the Hellers and their predecessors, consistent with actual ownership, for more than thirty years. The court further held that the survey and title evidence that DiSylvestro offered was insufficient to create a genuine factual dispute as to actual possession and the utility easement did not render the use permissive rather than adverse.

Central to the outcome was the court's treatment of fences as evidence of possession. The record supported the trial judge's finding that the fence's existence served as evidence of open and notorious possession, distinguishing the case from ordinary "minor" encroachments that may require further inquiry.

Takeaways

This decision is a helpful primer on adverse possession. In particular, a fence or any other clear marker that stands openly on a boundary for decades is compelling evidence of an adverse-possession claim as clear, visible evidence of ownership of the land it encloses. It is also a reminder that post-judgment deadlines are unforgiving. In New Jersey, a motion for reconsideration of a final order must be filed within twenty days, and a trial court has no discretion to extend that period; missing it can end the case regardless of the merits.

For a copy of the decision, please contact Michael O’Donnell at modonnell@riker.com.