[WSBARP] Quiet Title - "Actual Possession" Where Possessor's Use Is Unlawful

[NC]

There is a line of cases that state the adversely used area has to be
"used" in the manner similar to the nature of the surrounding property
during the period of time required. Could you argue that a nonconforming
use fails this requirement?

On Monday, October 3, 2016, Paul <pneumiller at hotmail.com> wrote:

> I would love to see that case if it exists.  In all of the elements for
> adverse possession that I have seen (open, notorious, continuous, etc.)
> I’ve never  seen the element “and the adverse possessors use must be
> lawful.”  Maybe it hasn’t come up because no adverse possessor wants to
> admit to an unlawful use?
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com');>
> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com');>] *On
> Behalf Of *David Faber
> *Sent:* Friday, September 30, 2016 4:35 PM
> *To:* wsbarp <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com');>>
> *Subject:* [WSBARP] Quiet Title - "Actual Possession" Where Possessor's
> Use Is Unlawful
>
>
>
> PC has been threatened with a quiet title action by the owner of a
> vacant/unimproved lot neighboring PC's property. The neighbor has been
> using a portion of PC's property to dump garbage/junk/broken down
> vehicles/etc for decades. The issue I am wrestling with is whether a person
> can claim that they had "actual possession" of a disputed portion of
> property when their use of the property was technically unlawful (local
> zoning disallows use of vacant land as a junkyard, and neighbor is now
> being threatened by city with daily fines for violating solid waste
> disposal requirements)? I recall seeing a case that stood for the
> proposition that one cannot claim adverse possession through unlawful use,
> but I cannot seem to find that case. Does this ring a bell with anyone else
> or does anyone have any thoughts on this?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> David J. Faber
>
> Faber Feinson PLLC
>
> 210 Polk Street, Suite 1
>
> Port Townsend, WA 98368
> (360) 379-4110
>
>
>
> *** NOTICE: ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION - PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL.
> This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
> information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that
> you have received this communication in error, please do not print,
> copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information. Also,
> please indicate to the sender that you have received this communication in
> error, and destroy the copy you received.***
>


-- 
Nicholas L. Clapham
(206)939-0262

NOTICE- This email message may contain confidential and privileged
information. It is intended only for the named recipent(s) and may contain
attorney work product and/or information exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. Any unauthorized use is prohibited.  If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
all copies of the original message. This does not constitute an electronic
signature.

Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230 and other IRS
regulations, unless we expressly state otherwise, any tax advice contained
in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
tax-related penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter(s) addressed herein.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161003/824d7278/attachment.html>