Tonseth v. LUKE
369 U.Va. 33 (2019)
Introduction
Once upon a time, in a world not so long ago, there was peace.[1] 3 at 3 was actually held at a bar named 3, Crozet Pizza was the best biker bar in Virginia, and The Virginian was true to its roots and traditions. This world has slowly deteriorated, and the last straw has come upon us. Despite ordering an injunction against the renaming of the original 3 at 3 hotspot and ordering damages for every biker who no longer felt at home at what is now Crozet Pizza, both of which failed miserably,[2] this Court is here to try once more to right the wrongs of The Corner. What has gone wrong at The Virginian is nearly unspeakable, but it is the order of this Court to try and right the pettiest wrongs of this esteemed university.
Summary of the Facts
Plaintiff law students brought this case several weeks ago, complaining about the new policy that The Virginian (nicknamed Virg (now nicknamed Less Fun Virg (further nicknamed LFV for short))) has ordered to be followed for the rest of eternity. Sometime in the last few weeks, an accident––a tort, if you will (although members of this Court and 98% of attorneys still aren’t sure what a tort even is)––occurred at what was then known as Virg. Apparently, some undergrad (we’ll call him “Loser Undergrad who ‘K’an’t hang in a bar Engineer (hereinafter, LUKE))[3] was enjoying too many libations and hopped up on a Virg table. Anyone who has been to Virg knows this is not only acceptable but strongly encouraged during late night festivities, so friends of said undergrad gladly welcomed him to the overcrowded, sweaty, and dirty tabletop where unsuspecting visitors likely let their food sit just a few hours earlier. Tragically, these welcoming undergrads had no idea that they were welcoming the demise of all they had ever known.
Once LUKE joined his fellow undergrads on the table, he promptly committed the greatest party foul this Court has ever seen. While the details are a bit hazy (the members of this Court hear that happens when you indulge too heavily in libations, but obviously wouldn’t know as sophisticated law students who can actually handle their liquor[4]), one fact is clear: LUKE fell off the table. LUKE was injured and Virg shortly thereafter became LFV. This formerly fun bar did the unthinkable: It banned late night Corner visitors from dancing on the tables.
The Complaint
Plaintiffs contest that this new policy is despicable, inappropriate, and “straight up bogus.” They contend that LFV does not have proper ownership of the tabletops, since students have adversely possessed these for, like, a long time. Consequently, they argue this action by the bar is not meritorious and unenforceable. They further demand a preliminary injunction requiring LFV to revert back to its former state (aka Virg) by allowing students back on the tops of tables. Finally, plaintiffs assert that LUKE should pay for the harm that he caused students by having to wait even longer in line to get into LFV (no table dancing = more floor space taken up = grumpy bouncers) and must pay such damages by purchasing drinks for everyone at the bar on Halloween.
Analysis
To win a claim of adverse possession, claimants must prove that their possession was open and notorious, exclusive, hostile, for the required statutory period, and continuous and uninterrupted. The lower court judge, Judge Jones, found that the alleged possession was clearly open and notorious (not sure how much more obvious claimed possession gets than a bunch of kids from NOVA belting out “Country Roads” while stomping their wannabe cowboy boots (aka Sperrys) in bright pink pastel shorts). Further, the lower court found possession exclusive––recognizing plaintiffs as a group in pursuit of a common goal and, for purposes of adverse possession, allowed them to stand as one exclusive unit. Finally, the court below found that possession had occurred for the full relevant statutory period (“a long time,” as claimed in the complaint, sufficed). However, the court ruled against plaintiffs for insufficient evidence regarding the hostility of possession and proof of possession being truly uninterrupted in the relevant sense.
While this Court respects Judge Jones and his attempt to correctly interpret the law of our jurisdiction, we hereby correct some clearly erroneous findings determined below. The alleged adverse possession was both hostile and uninterrupted in the relevant sense in this Court’s eyes; it follows that the lower court decision must be reversed and the case must be remanded for further decisions as consistent with the rest of this opinion.
The first definition of hostile that appears on Google is “unfriendly, antagonistic.” The definition goes on to define synonyms of hostile, which include both “aggressive” and “belligerent.” This Justice has not yet completed her legislation class, nor has she learned much up to this point,[5] but she does vaguely recall some ability to look at a dictionary definition and, if it seems like one word or phrase somewhere supports the interpretation a judge desires to find, then she can selectively use such word or phrase to advance her own preconceived notions of what is the “right” outcome.[6] Here, I find it hard to believe that anyone could describe students out on a Saturday night on a Virg table as anything but aggressive and belligerent, and hereby find the lower court’s determination clearly erroneous.
Next, regarding the uninterrupted nature of the alleged adverse possession: While it is true, as Judge Jones points out, that students are not constantly on the tables to show their claim of the property, must one always be in a place one is adversely possessing? Or is the relevant time frame more narrowly defined? Here, plaintiffs don’t contend to have the right to dance on a Virg table at 2 p.m. on a Sunday afternoon; rather, they claim ownership when night life is at its peak––mainly the weekends after 10 p.m. Under this narrower definition of time, clearly plaintiffs would prevail as uninterruptedly possessing the relevant property given the long-standing tradition of table dancing that predates you, me, and this Court as a whole. While this Court doesn’t find Judge Jones clearly erred in his finding, we also subscribe to our well-known Rule 1 of Petty Procedure: “We do what we want.” Therefore, we overrule the lower court and find all the elements of adverse possession met.
Conclusion
This Court vacates the lower court judgment and remands the case for further decision of the case on the merits. We strongly urge the lower-court judge to remember the angry mob that will come for him should he rule against the students, and also recognize that he will be overruled on appeal to this Court if he doesn’t grant an injunction and damages as requested in the original complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
---
mes5hf@virginia.edu
[1] Not world peace, don’t get ahead of yourself.
[2] Yes, we are petty about it.
[3] Acronyms are hard, I did my best.
[4] Maybe if we pretend it’s true one day it will happen.
[5] Through the complete fault of her own @Professor_Gilbert you’re great and we don’t deserve you.
[6] #JudicialActivism at its finest.