[WSBARP] Adverse Possession

Tue Feb 21 11:09:43 PST 2017

good point John!

sent on iphone, apologies for typos!

Kathleen J. Hopkins
Real Property Law Group, PLLC
1326 Fifth Ave., Suite 654
Seattle, WA 98101
p & f: (206)625-0404
khopkins at rp-lawgroup.com

This communication is attorney-client privileged.

> On Feb 21, 2017, at 10:37 AM, John M. Riley III <JMR at witherspoonkelley.com> wrote:
> 
> I would add that Gamboa is a prescriptive easement case, so it is not yet clear how much  of the court's rationale will be applied wholesale to adverse possession claims.
> 
> John Riley
> 
> 
> John M. Riley III
> Principal | Witherspoon • Kelley
> JMR at witherspoonkelley.com
> 
> 422 W. Riverside Ave, Suite 1100
> Spokane, WA 99201
> (509) 624-5265 (office)
> (509) 458-2728 (fax)
> witherspoonkelley.com
> 
> Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Kathleen Hopkins
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 9:53 AM
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Adverse Possession
> 
> Further on your original comment, you can tack on prior owners use, so long as it is 10 years open (aka notorious), continuous, adverse (aka hostile).  Note there is a defense of neighborly sufferance to consider, see Gamboa v Clark 183 Wn2d 38 (2015) for discussion of that defense to "adverse/hostile. "
> 
> Kathleen J. Hopkins
> Real Property Law Group, PLLC
> 1326 Fifth Avenue, Suite 654
> Seattle, WA 98101
> Phone & Fax: (206) 625-0404
> email: khopkins at rp-lawgroup.com
> www.rp-lawgroup.com
> 
> 
> This message is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine; if you are not the intended recipient of this message please let the sender know you received it in error and please delete this message.  Thank you.
> 
> Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations concerning tax practice, you are advised that this message is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by anyone for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under any tax laws; or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Thayer
> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 3:08 PM
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Adverse Possession
> 
> It is 10 years.  The tax paying 7 year provision only applies when you have  "color of title" to the disputed property.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Chris Thayer
> PIVOTAL LAW GROUP, PLLC
> www.PivotalLawGroup.com<http://www.PivotalLawGroup.com>
> 206.340.2008
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 20, 2017, at 2:17 PM, Scott Hildebrand <scott at starboard-strategies.com<mailto:scott at starboard-strategies.com>> wrote:
> 
> Dearest Real Property Gurus
> I have a client who has acquired property and there is property separated by a fence that can be claimed via adverse possession. My client has only had the property for a while, but claims they can tack on the previous owners use for more than seven years.
> 
> Help me with some statutory interpretation if you are willing:
> 7.28.050 seems to be the standard definition of adverse possession.
> 7.28.070 requires an adverse possessor to have used the land and paid taxes.
> 
> I get the reimbursement for taxes if paid by the adverse party and the attorney fees provision, but does the non-payment of taxes make my client’s case that much less defensible? Is it likely to be tossed for lack of stating a claim under the law?
> 
> If someone could shed some light on this, I would appreciate it.
> 
> Best,
> Scott Hildebrand
> Attorney at Law
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp