| Copyright 2005-2007 All Rights Reserved Charles E. Marunde & FreeRealEstateLaw.com |
| Adverse Possession |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
When the United States was rapidly growing and land was plentiful,
adverse possession was a public policy promoting the efficient use and
development of land. That policy no longer seems to have any validity
today, but the doctrine is still alive and well.
Adverse possession, like an easement by prescription, is a means of
owning property by using it exclusively for at least 10 years. Here are the
basic elements copied from a trial brief I did in a boundary dispute:
A quiet title action is not always the answer to a boundary dispute, a claim
of property or a claim of an easement. There are other causes of action
and legal issues to consider as you can see in this Quiet Title Checklist.
In Washington you do not have to have a survey when you buy real
estate. I'm not suggesting that we should. Claims of adverse possession
are so common in Washington, it does make a person stop and seriously
consider whether a surveyor should be hired and whether all boundary
markers should be identified before committing to close on the property.
Even doing all of this does not put you in the save zone, because there
are so many incorrect surveys where the corners are wrong or the
boundary is off so many inches or fees. There are also many cases
where there are two surveys, an old one and a new and correct one, but
the orange flags or markers of the original survey are still there marking
what appears to be the true corners or boundaries. There is a
tremendous volume of litigation in this area.
adverse possession was a public policy promoting the efficient use and
development of land. That policy no longer seems to have any validity
today, but the doctrine is still alive and well.
Adverse possession, like an easement by prescription, is a means of
owning property by using it exclusively for at least 10 years. Here are the
basic elements copied from a trial brief I did in a boundary dispute:
A quiet title action is not always the answer to a boundary dispute, a claim
of property or a claim of an easement. There are other causes of action
and legal issues to consider as you can see in this Quiet Title Checklist.
In Washington you do not have to have a survey when you buy real
estate. I'm not suggesting that we should. Claims of adverse possession
are so common in Washington, it does make a person stop and seriously
consider whether a surveyor should be hired and whether all boundary
markers should be identified before committing to close on the property.
Even doing all of this does not put you in the save zone, because there
are so many incorrect surveys where the corners are wrong or the
boundary is off so many inches or fees. There are also many cases
where there are two surveys, an old one and a new and correct one, but
the orange flags or markers of the original survey are still there marking
what appears to be the true corners or boundaries. There is a
tremendous volume of litigation in this area.
| 3.1 In order to establish her adverse claim, plaintiff must meet the burden of proof (a preponderance of the evidence) by establishing each and every element of adverse possession under RCW 4.16.020 and as defined in our state courts. The burden of proving the “existence of each element of adverse possession is on the claimant.” Hunt v. Matthews, 8 Wn. App. 233, 238, 505 P.2d 819 (1973). See also Lloyd v. Montecucco, 83 Wn. App. 846, 924 P.2d 927 (1996); ITT Rayonier, Inc. v. Bell, 112 Wn.2d 754, 757, 774 P.2d 6 (1989); Anderson v. Hudak at 404-405 citing Chaplin v. Sanders, 100 Wn.2d 853, 676 P.2d 431 (1984); Stokes v. Kummer, 85 Wn. App. 682, - P.2d - (1997); Bryant v. Palmer Coking Coal Co., 86 Wn. App. 204, - P.2d - (1997). 3.2 In order to establish a claim of adverse possession, there must be possession for ten years that is: (1) open and notorious, (2) actual and uninterrupted, (3) exclusive, and (4) hostile. ITT Rayonier, Inc. v. Bell, 112 Wn.2d 754, 757, 774 P.2d 6 (1989). See also Lloyd v. Montecucco, 83 Wn.App. 846, 924 P.2d 927 (1996); Anderson v. Hudak at 404-405 citing Chaplin v. Sanders, 100 Wn.2d 853, 676 P.2d 431 (1984); Stokes v. Kummer, 85 Wn. App. 682, - P.2d - (1997); Bryant v. Palmer Coking Coal Co., 86 Wn. App. 204, - P. 2d - (1997). |
For an actual case on
Adverse Possession See
Anderson v. Hudak or see
ITT Rayonier v. Bell.
Adverse Possession See
Anderson v. Hudak or see
ITT Rayonier v. Bell.
