Tag Archives: Mutual Recognition & Acquiescence

Lloyd v. Montecucco: Projecting Property Lines Along Land is Fine; Into Tidal Waters is a Different Story

Lloyd v. Montecuco, 83 Wn. App. 846 (Div. II 1996) is a waterfront case which helps to identify the extent to which definitive (boundary) lines must be demonstrated in order to achieve adverse possession. The case is informative with respect to adversely possessed property boundaries both on land and out into the water. Background Facts: … Continue Reading

How Might Ms. Lilly Fair Under RCW 7.28.083

In yesterday’s post, I reviewed the case Lilly v. Lynch, 88 Wn.App. 306 (Div. II 1997). For those not wishing to review, it was basically about Ms. Lilly going beyond what seems to have been a longstanding boundary wall which was used to recognize her boundary from a chain of previous neighbors. She did this … Continue Reading

Parole Agreement

The transfer of land generally requires a written document, which is then recorded. This is per a body of contract law called the Statute of Frauds. The Statute of Frauds emerged in common law to protect against situations in which someone might make a claim based merely on what was purportedly spoken. The idea is to … Continue Reading

Mutual Recognition & Acquiescence

Mutual Recognition & Acquiescence is a legal doctrine, which though much less used and developed than adverse possession, sometimes serves as another means to settle a land fight between adjoining property owners. The doctrine of Mutual Recognition & Acquiescence may be adequately summarized as: (1) an express or implied good faith definition of a boundary; which (2) is bilaterally recognized; … Continue Reading

House Judiciary Committee’s Public Hearing on HB 1026 – Part III

After the initial House Judiciary Committee Hearing on 2011.01.13, Assistant Minority Floor Leader Rep. Matt Shea (R) of Spokane’s 4th Legislative District offered Proposed Substitute HB 1026 – now SHB 1026. Its stated effects were as follows: Changes the standard of evidence for adverse possession claims to “clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.” Requires adverse possession claimants … Continue Reading
LexBlog