"The plaintiff’s use of the land was somewhat sporadic and seasonal in nature, but this was consistent with how owners of a vacant lot adjoining a home in a beach area of the state would use this type of property. There was uncontradicted testimony that the plaintiff cut the grass, planted flowers, improved the flower beds, and entertained on the property. This is entirely compatible with the type of use that would be expected of the owner of unimproved land. Cultivating land, planting trees, and making other improvements in such a manner as is usual for comparable land have been successfully relied on as proof of the required possession. Even discounting improvements made after the 1997 letter, the trial justice found “overwhelming evidence” that the plaintiff had exercised dominion over lot 19 as an owner would for well in excess of ten years. Viewing this case through the prism of the deferential standard of review, the trial justice was not clearly wrong when he found that the plaintiff’s use of that land for a period exceeding two decades met the legal requirements to establish that she had acquired lot 19 by adverse possession. The judgment of the Superior Court therefore should be affirmed."