[WSBARP] New fact pattern for me Adverse Possession.

Thu Mar 11 15:27:19 PST 2021

Hi all,

My thoughts:   the bad guy's representation to the IRS that he does not own
the property probably is a good argument that he had no intent to adversely
possess the property.  It's well documented and made in a situation where
ownership of the property would probably have been beneficial to the guy.
 The question I think is whether this or other facts can overcome apparent
(1) hostile, (2) actual and uninterrupted, (3) open and notorious, and (3)
exclusive use by bad guy for the statutory period.  The fact that he made
no effort to remove Mom's name from mortgage might show that he fails at
"open and notorious" during the statutory period.  I do know that in 2020
the WA SC issued a couple of decisions clarifying that there is a
presumption for permissive use - I'd make baddie cough up the document your
client supposedly signed.  It could resolve the question of permission or
not.

Teague Pasco
 LL.M. - Taxation
1214 S. 68th St.
Tacoma WA  98408
pasco at pasco-law.com
Land:  360-975-3387
Mobile:  360-643-3990

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 2:59 PM Christy M <talk2much84 at msn.com> wrote:

> If he's telling people it's not his, it doesn't seem open and notorious.
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Craig Gourley <craig at glgmail.com>
> Date: 3/11/21 2:45 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] New fact pattern for me Adverse Possession.
>
>
>    1. My guess is the bad guy was making the payments, got behind and
>    then cured it. Bank obviously either doesn’t know or doesn’t care that
>    borrower is deceased.
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <
> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *Roger Hawkes
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 11, 2021 2:37 PM
> *To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] New fact pattern for me Adverse Possession.
>
>
>
> Craig: if facts are what you state, I am pretty sure a sober judge would
> find some sort of equitable relief and not grant a decree of ap.  The two
> foreclosure actions give me some pause too; seems like somebody would have
> to do something so the result was not foreclosure.
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <
> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *Craig Gourley
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 11, 2021 2:19 PM
> *To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* [WSBARP] New fact pattern for me Adverse Possession.
>
>
>
> Listmates.  After 37 years I thought I had seen just about every weird
> fact pattern that people can come up with.  Well, I was wrong.  Your
> thoughts on this would be appreciated.   Mom dies 17 years ago. No probate.
> Son is grief stricken when along comes the bad guy and tells grief stricken
> son that he will “ take over”  the house and gives him a couple bucks for
> his trouble.  Son moves out, signs some document which we do not have a
> copy of.  Son later figures out he has been taken advantage of but figures
> nothing can be done.   Now, along comes the IRS investigating the bad guy
> and trying to see if he owns the property which bad guy I believe tells the
> IRS that he does not . IRS tells son that whatever he signed was not valid
> so Mom is still in title.  I check and yes deceased mom is still in title
> with an outstanding Deed of Trust that has been in foreclosure twice since
> she died. Not sure if bad guy lives there but suspect he is renting it
> out.  Soooo.  If we open probate to get son the  power over the real estate
> can we try to kick the bad guy out?  Is the fact he has had possession for
> more than 10 years create adverse possession even if he acquired that
> possession by fraud or some underhanded means?  If he made a statement to
> the IRS under penalty of perjury that he does not own it, is that a waiver
> or some such thing? My initial thought is adverse possession is a problem
> but I have never researched the fraud angle or a subsequent disclaimer.
> Thoughts???
>
>
>
> *GOURLEY LAW GROUP*
>
> *THE EXCHANGE CONNECTION*
>
> *SNOHOMISH ESCROW *
>
> P.O. Box 1091
>
> Snohomish, WA 98291
>
> PH:  (360) 568-5065 (800) 291-8401
>
> Fax: (360) 568-8092
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain
> legally privileged, confidential information belonging to the sender. The
> information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
> above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
> any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action based on the
> contents of this electronic mail is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this electronic mail in error, please contact sender and delete
> all copies.
>
>
> ***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/20210311/d5449f5a/attachment.html>