El Cerrito, Inc. v. Ryndak
376 P.2d 528 · Washington Supreme Court · 1962
Facts
In 1930, an apartment house, El Cerrito Apartments, was constructed. From 1936 to 1949, Captain and Mrs. Gilje owned and occupied the apartment property, treating a 2.5-foot strip of land immediately north of their true property line as their own. They maintained a picket fence, planted flowers, trimmed trees, and had structures (eaves, garbage can covering) extending onto this strip. From 1949 to 1957, Harry W. Boyd and his wife owned and occupied the apartment property, continuing similar use and maintenance of the strip. Appellants Bruno Ryndak and Margaret Ryndak acquired the abutting property to the north in 1948. None of the Ryndak property occupants claimed the land south of the fence from 1936 to at least 1956 or 1957. In 1957, the Boyds sold the apartment property to respondents Young, who then sold it to respondents Capretto, who in turn sold it to respondent El Cerrito, Inc. A 1957 survey showed encroachments on the Ryndak property, and the Boyds offered to buy the strip to expedite their sale, though they believed they had title. In 1960, appellant Ryndak forcibly removed a wooden frame for garbage cans on the disputed strip.
Procedural history
This case originated as an action brought under the 10-year adverse possession statute. The trial court heard the case and entered a judgment quieting title to the disputed land in the respondents. The record title holders, the Ryndaks, appealed this judgment. Respondents moved to dismiss the appeal, but this court denied the motion.
Issue
Did the trial court err in concluding that the use and possession of the 2.5-foot strip of land by the predecessors in title (Giljes and Boyds) established title by adverse possession, and did this title accrue to the current possessor, El Cerrito, Inc.? Specifically, was the possession sufficiently hostile and was there proper privity between the successive owners?
Holding
The court affirmed the judgment that title by adverse possession was established and accrued to El Cerrito, Inc. However, the judgment was modified to strike the Youngs and Caprettos as parties with an interest in the disputed strip due to a lack of privity.
Rule
To establish title by adverse possession, possession must be actual, uninterrupted, open, notorious, hostile, exclusive, and under a claim of right for the statutory period of 10 years. "Hostile" in adverse possession means possession as owner, not subordinate to the true owner, and does not require animosity. An offer to purchase the disputed land does not negate hostility if the claimant believed they already had title and made the offer to expedite a sale. A purchaser can tack the adverse use of a predecessor where the land was intended to be included in the deed but mistakenly omitted, establishing privity. Once title is acquired by adverse possession for 10 years, it ripens into an original title and the 10-year statute of limitations does not require continuous adverse holding up to the time of a lawsuit to quiet title.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.