2 Wash. App. 348, 469 P.2d 990
Land surveying errors led to a mismatch between deed descriptions and actual occupations on the shore of Hood Canal in Mason County.1 As long ago as 1932, McCall resided in the house now occupied by the Kuntos under a deed describing a 50-foot-wide parcel that was adjacent to the lot where the house stood.2 Several property owners to the west of defendants were similarly situated.3
Since 1946, several conveyances occurred using the same legal description accompanied by transfer of possession to succeeding occupants.4 The Kuntos' immediate predecessors, the Millers, had a survey performed to build a dock which indicated conformity between deed and occupation, leading to placement of boundary stakes and construction of improvements.5
The Kuntos took possession of the disputed property under a deed from the Millers in 1959.6 In 1960, the Howards, who held land east of the Kuntos, undertook a survey to convey an undivided one-half interest to the Yearlys.7 The survey revealed that the Howards were record owners of land occupied by the Moyers and the Moyers held record title to land occupied by the Kuntos.8
In April 1960, Howard obtained a conveyance from Moyer of the land upon which the Kunto house stood in exchange for conveying the land upon which the Moyer house stood.9 Until that conveyance, neither Moyer nor predecessors asserted any right to the property possessed by Kunto and predecessors.10 Plaintiffs instituted this action to quiet title on August 19, 1960, when defendants had been in occupancy of the disputed property less than a year.11
The trial court denied the Kuntos' claim of adverse possession, finding a lack of continuity of possession or estate to permit tacking and that defendants' possession was not continuous because it involved only summer occupancy.12 Defendants appealed from the decree quieting title in the plaintiffs.13
Is a claim of adverse possession defeated because the physical use of the premises is restricted to summer occupancy?14
To constitute adverse possession there must be actual possession which is uninterrupted, open and notorious, hostile and exclusive, and under a claim of right made in good faith for the statutory period.15 The requisite possession requires such possession and dominion as ordinarily marks the conduct of owners in general in holding managing and caring for property of like nature and condition.16 Continuity of possession may be established although the land is used regularly for only the summer months each year.17
No. Land surveying is an ancient art but errors can occur in deed descriptions.18 In this case the descriptions in deeds did not match the land occupied by the deed holders on the shore of Hood Canal in Mason County.19 As long ago as 1932 McCall resided in the house now occupied by the Kuntos under a deed that described an adjacent 50-foot-wide parcel rather than the one where the house stood.20 Several other property owners to the west were similarly situated with mismatched deeds and occupations.21
Over the years since 1946 several conveyances occurred using the same legal description with transfer of possession to succeeding occupants.22 The Kuntos immediate predecessors the Millers had a survey performed which indicated conformity leading to boundary stakes and construction of a dock and other improvements.23 The Kuntos took possession under a deed from the Millers in 1959.24
In 1960 the Howards undertook a survey to convey an interest to the Yearlys.25 The survey revealed mismatches leading Howard to obtain a conveyance from Moyer of the land occupied by the Kuntos in exchange for the land occupied by the Moyers.26 Until that time no assertion of right was made by Moyer or predecessors to the property possessed by Kunto.27
Plaintiffs instituted this action to quiet title on August 19 1960.28 At that time the Kuntos had been in occupancy less than a year.29 The trial court denied the adverse possession claim due to lack of continuity from summer occupancy and inability to tack predecessors possession.30 The Kuntos and their predecessors occupied the disputed property as a summer recreational retreat for more than ten years with the house and improvements remaining on the land year-round.31 This satisfies the continuity requirement because the land is used during the period it is capable of use and matches how owners of such beach property would manage it.32 The trial court incorrectly concluded that summer occupancy alone defeats continuity.33
A claim of adverse possession is not defeated by restriction to summer occupancy of a summer beach home.34
May a person who receives record title to tract A under the mistaken belief that he has title to tract B immediately contiguous to tract A and who subsequently occupies tract B for the purpose of establishing title to tract B by adverse possession use the periods of possession of tract B by his immediate predecessors who also had record title to tract A?35
Tacking of adverse possession is permitted if the successive occupants are in privity.36 The deed running between the parties purporting to transfer the land possessed traditionally furnishes the privity of estate which connects the possession of the successive occupants.37 Where several successive purchasers received record title to tract A under the mistaken belief that they were acquiring tract B immediately contiguous thereto, and where possession of tract B is transferred and occupied in a continuous manner for more than ten years by successive occupants, there is sufficient privity of estate to permit tacking and thus establish adverse possession as a matter of law.38
Yes. The Kuntos received record title to tract A under the mistaken belief that they had title to tract B immediately contiguous to tract A and occupied tract B.39 Their immediate predecessors the Millers and earlier occupants back to McCall likewise held record title to tract A while occupying tract B under the same erroneous description.40 Successive conveyances transferred possession of the occupied land continuously since 1932.41
The requirement of privity is satisfied because a reasonable connection exists between the successive occupants who in good faith received an erroneous deed description and the technical requirement of privity should not upset long periods of occupancy.42 This permits tacking of the predecessors periods of possession to establish the statutory ten years.43
A person in these circumstances may use the periods of possession of tract B by immediate predecessors to establish title by adverse possession.44