On Thursday, January 19th, yours truly is being given the opportunity to speak to the Washington State Section of the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (“WSS – ACSM”). The topic write-up is this:
Last year the Washington State legislature changed the law of adverse possession by giving courts discretion to award (1) reasonable attorney fees and
I explained that the element “Open & Notorious” is actually “two sides of the same fence” in this recent post. There I indicated that “Open” is the way the putative adverse possessor demonstrates possession. “Notorious” is how the title holder, or the world as the title holder’s proxy, recognizes this demonstration.
Well, how far of
Open & Notorious is an extremely difficult element to understand and prove (and yes, despite the required burden – disprove) in Adverse Possession and Prescriptive Easement cases.
In my humble opinion, much of this relates to an overall misunderstanding of the fact that this single element is actually two elements combined into one. I liken
Below please find the most important parts of the new law for those who want a quick overview of changes. My attempt is to provide some of the most important information about the formation of the new law and its likely effects.
The New Adverse Possession Law – What it is and what it is not?
First, the proposed new adverse possession bill
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
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
Both Washington’s House and Senate have recently overwhelmingly adopted newly proposed sections to alter adverse possession, the primary law used to adjudicate land disputes. One problem, the House and Senate versions are similar with respect to two rather insignificant sections, but completely different with respect to the purport of this bill, which is to make the law of adverse possession
The vast majority of my posts for the last couple months have been Treatment Level – High. However, today Washington’s Senate exeded vast majority status by unanimously voting to adopt Washington’s Adverse Possession Bill. Great News! … Right?
Well to be honest, I’m not so sure. My uncertainty stems from the fact that the House, which
Bud, I like you. Just remember this:
Man looks into the abyss.
There is nothing staring back at him.
At that moment, man gains his character.
And that … is what keeps him out of the abyss.
That’s the language that I recall a seasoned, senior broker, played by Hal Holbrook, used to
The Senate Judiciary Committee gave ESHB 1026 an executive hearing and passed it out of committee today. Not hard to see what happened. Particularly when supplemented with a viewing of the hearing on Washington’s equivalent of C-span here.
[Note: to view only adverse possession’s ESHB 1026’s executive session, select the March 25th date and then scroll into the
