[WSBARP] Adverse Possession

Mon Feb 10 13:46:29 PST 2020

That’s an interesting thought. Merger requires 1. Coming together of two different estates; and 2. Merger is not contrary to the intention of the party against whom asserted, and not inimical to their interests.  Unless the owner of the two lots did not intend merger when the second one was deeded to them, or it was against their interests, then merger.  

As to Randy’s question, maybe merger does apply. It would depend in part on what the person who owned both parcels for four years says about intention and inimicability. OK, so that’s not a word. Maybe it depends on whether they have a dog in this fight, as to what they would say. If they get tendered a claim, they have a dog in the fight, and they may want to say merger was the intention and it was in furtherance of their interests. 

Use of they, them  and their instead of he or she – him or her – his or hers, is still unsettling.  

Rob

Robert D. Wilson-Hoss

Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP

236 West Birch Street

Shelton, WA 98584

360 426-2999

www.hossandwilson-hoss.com

rob at hctc.com

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Terrance Wilson
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 4:40 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Adverse Possession

doesn't the merger doctrine distinguish this fact pattern from the Gorman case, which dealt with perfecting title prior to being acquired my a municipality?  I didn't see merger addressed in the Gorman case anywhere, and the municipality in that case is just like any other owner in that it takes subject to despite it being immune to AP claims after its acquisition. In Gorman, the properties at issue where not owned at any time by the same owner.  It seems the merger issue is what needs to be evaluated- maybe I am wrong and merger (as contrasted with municipal acquisition) doesn't extinguish the claim? 

Terrance Randall Wilson, Managing Partner

Attorney at Law

Wilson Law Group of WA

(206) 550-3189 - Cell

(206) 805-6238 - Office

  _____  

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>  <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> > on behalf of Gregory L. Ursich <gursich at insleebest.com <mailto:gursich at insleebest.com> >
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 4:06 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> >
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Adverse Possession 

If the 10 years ran prior to the acquisition of the two properties, then adverse possession is perfected at that time, especially if the two parcels were acquired at different times by the common owner. Gorman states the proposition as that once the 10 years runs, then adverse possession is perfected, and all that left to do is to confirm it by a quiet title action. Read that decision carefully. -Greg Ursich, Inslee Best

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 7, 2020, at 3:54 PM, Terrance Wilson <Twilson at wilsonlawgroupwa.com <mailto:Twilson at wilsonlawgroupwa.com> > wrote:

Isn't Gorman dealing with municipalities taking land subject to AP claims already in existence when the government acquires such land?  I understood the doctrine of merger to eliminate AP claims when adjoining properties are acquired by the same owner.  The 10 years would not therefore start again until there are actually adverse parties again.   

Terrance Randall Wilson, Managing Partner

Attorney at Law

Wilson Law Group of WA

(206) 550-3189 - Cell

(206) 805-6238 - Office

  _____  

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>  <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> > on behalf of Gregory L. Ursich <gursich at insleebest.com <mailto:gursich at insleebest.com> >
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 3:15 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> >
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Adverse Possession 

Randy: Not quite; if 10 years had ran with the encroachment in place before common ownership, the adverse possession claim would likely survive. See, Gorman v. City 🌃 Woodinville, Wa Supreme Court. -Greg Ursich, Inslee Best

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 7, 2020, at 3:08 PM, Randy Boyer <randyedlynlaw at gmail.com <mailto:randyedlynlaw at gmail.com> > wrote:

 Listmates 

I am dealing with two adjacent parcels.  For many years they were owned by different people.  Until recently there was no knowledge of an encroachment of a yard area.  When one of the parcel owners died, the other owner purchased that property (that encroached).  The two parcels were owned by the same owner for 4 years.  Then that owner sold each of the parcels in the same year to different parties. 

One of the new owners claims adverse possession for the yard area encroachment.  It seems to me that when both lots were owned by one owner the adverse possession claim could no longer be asserted.  New owner has only owned for 5 years.  Both parcels were sold with Warranty Deeds.

Has anyone run across this?  I have not found any cases yet.

Randy

Randy M. Boyer                                                 ______
Attorney, WSBA# 8665

Law Office of Randy M. Boyer, Inc. P.S. 
7017 196th St. S.W.  Lynnwood, Washington 98036
* 425.712.3107|   Fax 425.778.2274
mail to: randyedlynlaw at gmail.com <mailto:randyedlynlaw at gmail.com> 

This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521, and is legally privileged.  This email was sent by an attorney or his agent, is intended only for the addressee’s use, and may contain confidential and privileged information.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, reproduction or other use of the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender by reply email.  Thank you for your cooperation.

***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***

_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com> 
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp

***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***

_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com> 
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200210/2596ea78/attachment.html>