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.
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..
As in Washington State (See Previous Post – My What Pretty Property You Have), adverse possession in Oregon requires that a claimant satisfy something of a standard test that the claimant and their predecessors in interest have maintained: (1) actual; … Continue reading →
As noted in my last post on adverse possession, a party (“claimant”) may gain ownership over another’s land by satisfying a four part – the claimant’s possession of the land was: (1) exclusive; (2) uninterrupted, (3) open and notorious; and … Continue reading →
You are walking a potential purchase – it is an acreage lot and you notice that the boundary lines of the yards of adjoining property owners are uneven, and that their boundary with the parcel that you are considering are … Continue reading →