Even when there isn’t a written agreement, a court may find that an easement exists. The big four – Prescriptive Easements, Easements by Estoppel, Easements of Necessity, and Easements by Implication. An overview of the easements that a court may find run across your property.
Your neighbor’s trees. Washington’s Court of Appeals restates the State Supreme Court’s holding in Gostina v. Ryland – if a tree’s root stray’s onto your property, you may cut it off, even if it damages the tree.
This post is part 4 of a 6-part series on Washington’s adverse possession doctrine. The adverse possession doctrine encompasses four elements: (1) open and notorious, (2) actual and uninterrupted, (3) exclusive, and (4) hostile. LeBleu v. Aalgaard, 193 Wn.App. 66, 78 (2016). This post will examine the “Actual and Uninterrupted” element, which requires the claimant to show that their possession of the disputed property was actual and uninterrupted for the ten-year statutory period. Even a temporary interruption may defeat a claim.
Adverse possession in Washington State requires a showing of: (1) open and notorious, (2) actual and uninterrupted, (3) exclusive, and (4) hostile possession of land for the statutory period. As noted by the Court of Appeals, these phrases are not clear and do not track with modern English. This post examines the first element, “Open and Notorious,” and how it has been interpreted by Washington Courts.
What does Exclusive Possession in an adverse possession case mean? Under Washington case law, use of the disputed property by the true or titled owner may not be sufficient to defeat an adverse possession claim.
Court finds that agreement on boundary line did not convert use to permissive. Rather, Court noted that “hostile” use means treating property as one’s own and an agreement on the boundary line, did not convert use to permissive use..
You see a catchy advertisement for a home on a golf course. Can the owner of the golf course later convert it to a residential subdivision? In Riverview Community Group v. Spencer & Livingston, Case Number 88575-3 (November 20, 1014), … Continue reading →
Exactly where is your easement?!? Gotcha, your easement must be invalid. The deed doesn’t say where the easement runs. To comply with the statute of frauds, “a contract or deed for the conveyance of land must contain a description of … Continue reading →