Howard v. Kunto

3 Wash. App. 393, 477 P.2d 210 (1970)



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.


Plaintiff's house stood on one lot while his deed described the adjacent lot. He filed an action to quiet title to the lot where his house was situated at a time where he occupied the disputed property less than a year. The lower court found plaintiff unable to establish a claim for adverse possession because they failed to prove continuity of possession to permit tacking of possession to their predecessors’. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals of Washington.


Was tacking of possession properly established to prove adverse possession?




The Court concluded that a ten year summer occupancy did not destroy continuity of possession for purposes of adverse possession because the land was regularly used during the time it was capable of use and defendants made continued improvements on the land. As a result, the court found tacking permitted. The court determined the privity requirement for tacking was satisfied because defendants' claim of right as the last of successive purchasers who received title under the mistaken belief they acquired a contiguous track was sufficiently above that of a trespasser.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.