[WSBARP] Adverse Possession
Kary Krismer
Krismer at comcast.net
Mon Feb 10 14:08:50 PST 2020
I'm not remembering the facts, but if there was an effective adverse
possession period completed, wouldn't the subsequent deeds from the
common owner using the original legal descriptions reverse that change
in property line (which was presumably never approved by the
city/county)? The owner of both properties transferred deeds away to
the specifically described parcels.
Kary L. Krismer
206 723-2148
On 2/10/2020 1:46 PM, Rob Wilson-Hoss wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> ***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
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200210/18967a26/attachment.html>
More information about the WSBARP
mailing list