Curtis v. Zuck is a case which involves what the court identifies as a ‘shifting easement’. The situation is one in which a gravel road over time ‘shifts’ outside of it’s actual bounds.

Well, just go ahead and put it back into its bounds and stop all this nonsensical meandering.

Unfortunately, it is not quite

gray-large.pngRoy v. Cunningham, 46.Wn.App.409, 731 P.2d 526 (1986.12.30) – [Cause No: 7208-8-III] – upholds the Yakima County Superior Court – [Case No: 83 2-01530-7] liability trial decision of Judge Jo Anne Alumbagh in favor of adverse possessors, Plaintiffs Roy, et al, yet remanded for redetermination damages for which title holder, Defendants Cunningham, et al

justice-smiles-green-large.pngAdverse Possession is the primary doctrine used to resolve boundary disputes. Its requirements, or legal elements, are:

  1. Actual Possession; that is
  2. Open & Notorious;
  3. Hostile; and
  4. Exclusive; held
  5. Continuously for the Statutory Period.

In essence what this means is that an adverse possessor needs to both sufficiently represent to others AND in actuality possess real property