Chaplin v. Sanders
676 P.2d 431 · Washington Supreme Court · 1984
Facts
Peter and Patricia Sanders own a trailer park in Snohomish County, adjoining property owned by Kent and Barbara Chaplin and Kenneth and Hazel Chaplin. In 1957 or 1958, the Sanders' predecessors, the Hibbards, cleared land up to a drainage ditch, installed a road for their trailer park, and used the area between the road and ditch. In 1960, the then-owner of the eastern parcel, Mr. McMurray, discovered the road encroached on his land and informed the Hibbards. A 1962 contract for sale of the trailer park property explicitly noted the encroachment. Subsequent owners, including the Sanders who purchased in 1976, continued to use the disputed strip of land for the trailer park, including parking, storage, and picnicking, and installed wiring. In 1978, the Chaplins purchased the eastern parcel, had a survey conducted, and discovered the encroachments, leading them to file an action to quiet title.
Procedural history
The trial court entered judgment in favor of the Sanders, awarding them a portion of the property (Parcel A) by adverse possession, but found they had not satisfied open and notorious possession for another portion (Parcel B). The Court of Appeals reversed, finding no "hostility" in the Sanders' possession due to their actual notice of the true owner's interest. The case then came before this court (the Supreme Court) on appeal.
Issue
Does a claimant's actual notice of the true owner's interest in the land possessed negate the element of hostility for adverse possession? Does the true owner's actual knowledge of the claimant's use of his land satisfy the element of open and notorious possession?
Holding
No, a claimant's actual notice of the true owner's interest does not negate hostility. Yes, the true owner's actual knowledge of the claimant's use satisfies the open and notorious element. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and quieted title to the disputed property in the Sanders.
Rule
To establish adverse possession, possession must be exclusive, actual and uninterrupted, open and notorious, and hostile and under a claim of right for 10 years. The element of hostility requires only that the claimant treat the land as their own against the world throughout the statutory period, with their subjective belief or intent to dispossess being irrelevant. The element of open and notorious is satisfied if the true title owner has actual notice of the adverse use throughout the statutory period, or if the character of the land and its use would put a reasonable person on notice of a claim of ownership.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.