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..
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 →
It’s my property and I’ll do whatever I want on it? You’ve heard this phrase before, but what if you hear it from your neighbor and what he wants to do is to purposefully build a fence solely to destroy … Continue reading →
An ongoing source of frustration between neighbors are trees. Usually the tree is clearly on one neighbor’s property, but its branches cross the property line. An alternative is that the tree’s roots cross the property line. While the offending branch … Continue reading →
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 →