Howard v. Kunto
477 P.2d 210 · 1970
Facts
Since at least 1932, McCall resided in a house on the shore of Hood Canal, but his deed described an adjacent 50-foot lot to the west. This error persisted through several conveyances after 1946, with succeeding occupants transferring possession of the physically occupied land. The Kuntos' predecessors, the Millers, had a survey performed that incorrectly indicated their deed description and physical occupation were in conformity, and they built improvements. The Kuntos took possession from the Millers in 1959. In 1960, the Howards, who owned land east of the Kuntos, had a survey done that revealed widespread discrepancies: the Howards were record owners of land occupied by the Moyers, and the Moyers held record title to the land occupied by the Kuntos. Howard obtained a conveyance from Moyer for the land Kunto occupied, and then instituted an action to quiet title against the Kuntos.
Issue
1. Is a claim of adverse possession defeated because the physical use of the premises is restricted to summer occupancy? 2. May a person who receives record title to tract A under the mistaken belief that they have title to tract B, and occupies tract B, use the periods of possession of tract B by immediate predecessors who also had record title to tract A, for the purpose of establishing title by adverse possession?
Holding
The court held that summer occupancy of a summer beach home does not destroy the continuity of possession required for adverse possession. The court also held that sufficient privity of estate exists to permit tacking where successive purchasers received record title to one tract but mistakenly occupied an adjacent tract, and possession of the occupied tract was transferred and occupied continuously for more than 10 years. The judgment was reversed, and the plaintiffs' action was dismissed, with directions to quiet the defendants' title.
Rule
To constitute adverse possession, there must be actual, uninterrupted, open and notorious, hostile, and exclusive possession under a claim of right made in good faith for the statutory period of 10 years. Continuity of possession is met if the land is used regularly for the period each year it is capable of use, reflecting the conduct of owners in general for property of like nature and condition, such as summer occupancy for a summer home. Tacking of adverse possession is permitted if successive occupants are in "privity," which is a reasonable connection between them. Privity exists when successive purchasers receive record title to one tract (A) but mistakenly occupy an adjacent tract (B), and possession of tract B is transferred and occupied continuously for the statutory period.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.