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.
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.
Stated another way, can I use my easement to the fullest extent possible, even over the objections of the owner of the property that the easement runs across? In Oregon, one of the leading cases addressing this question is the … 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 →