Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine in property law that permits successive periods of adverse possession or prescriptive use to be combined to satisfy the statutory period. The doctrine applies when privity exists between the successive users, such as through a transfer of the dominant estate or business assets that carries the claim of right. It prevents forfeiture of established uses by recognizing practical continuity rather than requiring each user to begin a new period.
Sources & Authorities· 1 primary source
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Stock Acquisition Continues Trench Use
Blue Logic installed and maintained an unpermitted fiber-optic trench on Anne's lot starting in 1998. In 2008 Bay Software acquired Blue Logic by stock purchase and retained the same employees who continued identical maintenance and use of the trench without interruption. The combined periods exceeded twenty years before Anne objected. Bay Software may tack Blue Logic's prior use because the stock acquisition transferred all business assets and rights, establishing the required privity.
Farm Sale Transfers Irrigation Lines
Stanley installed and used irrigation lines across Conrad's field without permission beginning in 1985 and continued openly for twenty years. In 2005 Stanley sold the farm to Fair Greenhouse under a contract that expressly included the irrigation system and associated rights. Fair Greenhouse continued the identical use for fifteen more years. Fair Greenhouse may tack Stanley's period because the conveyance of the system and rights created privity between the successive users.
Access Agreement Fails to Interrupt Use
Zenith Drug used Bridge Life Sciences' private road for deliveries for twelve years. Seven years ago Bridge Life Sciences filed a trespass suit and the parties signed a six-month access agreement that expired without renewal. Zenith Drug immediately resumed the same daily use for five more years without further objection. Zenith Drug may tack the pre-agreement years because the temporary agreement did not produce a permanent cessation or alter the adverse character of the use.
Unenforced Judgment Does Not Break Continuity
Highland Therapeutics drove medical vans daily over Fair Clinical's service road for fifteen years. Seven years ago Fair Clinical obtained a judgment declaring the use a trespass but never enforced it or blocked the road. Highland continued the identical daily use without interruption. Highland may tack the post-judgment years because the unenforced judgment did not cause an actual cessation or change the essential attitude of adverse use.
Single Towing Incident Creates Interruption
Red Coverage employees parked daily in Union Protection's driveway for more than fifteen years. Union Protection posted no-parking signs and towed one vehicle on a single weekend. Red Coverage employees resumed daily parking thereafter without further interference. Red Coverage cannot tack the pre-towing period because the successful self-help measure caused a cessation of the use without legal proceedings.
Seasonal Cabin Use Supports Tacking
The Kuntos and their predecessors occupied a summer cabin on land later claimed by the Howards under a mistaken boundary for successive periods totaling more than the statutory term. Each family used the property consistently with its seasonal nature and transferred possession through deeds that included the occupied land. The Howards may tack the prior periods because the successive possessors acted under a good-faith claim of right and maintained privity through the chain of title transfers.
Howard v. Kunto2 Wash. App. 348, 469 P.2d 990
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What relationship between successive users satisfies the privity requirement for tacking?+
Privity exists when a transfer of the dominant estate or business assets carries the claim of right, such as a stock purchase that includes all rights used in operations or a deed that expressly conveys an irrigation system and associated rights. The later user must succeed to the precise adverse claim asserted by the earlier user so that the periods combine without resetting the clock.
Supporting sources
Does an unprosecuted trespass suit or temporary access agreement interrupt continuity for tacking purposes?+
An unadjudicated suit or strictly temporary agreement that expires without renewal does not interrupt continuity when the use resumes immediately in the same manner and the servient owner takes no further enforcement steps. The rule requires either pursuit of legal proceedings to judgment or an actual cessation of the use to break the required attitude of adversity.
Supporting sources
When does a judgment declaring the use trespassory prevent tacking of later periods?+
A final judgment on the merits that determines the use lacks legal justification interrupts the period even if the servient owner never enforces the resulting injunction or records the judgment. The adjudication itself satisfies the rule by establishing that the use is no longer adverse in the required sense.
Supporting sources
Does a single successful self-help measure such as towing interrupt the prescriptive period?+
A single towing that actually causes a cessation of the use, even if temporary, interrupts continuity when accomplished without legal proceedings. The rule focuses on whether the servient owner caused a stoppage through self-help rather than on the number of incidents or whether the use later resumes.
Supporting sources
of the adverse possession of defendants to the possession of their predecessors.” Finding of fact 6[^maj-4], which is challenged by defendants, incorporates the above concept and…
Real PropertyRights in real property · Easements, profits, and licensesUBEFoundational