Chaplin v. Sanders

Washington Supreme Court
676 P.2d 431, 100 Wash. 2d 853 (1984)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The 'hostility' element of adverse possession is established by the claimant's objective actions of treating the land as their own as against the world, rendering the claimant's subjective belief about the true ownership irrelevant. The 'open and notorious' element is satisfied if the true owner has actual knowledge of the claimant's adverse use throughout the statutory period.

Facts:

In 1957 or 1958, the Sanders' predecessors in interest, the Hibbards, developed a trailer park and cleared land up to a drainage ditch, building a road that encroached on the adjacent property.
In 1960, the owner of the adjacent property, McMurray, had a survey done, discovered the encroachment, and informed the Hibbards.
When the Hibbards sold the property in 1962, the sales contract included a provision stating the purchasers, the Gilberts, were aware of the encroachment and would make no claim to the disputed strip of land.
The property was sold several more times, with the Sanders ultimately purchasing it in 1976. The Sanders were given actual notice of the contract provision but allegedly misunderstood which road it referred to.
From 1958 until 1978, the owners and tenants of the trailer park continuously used the road and the adjacent strip of land for access, parking, storage, gardening, and recreation.
In the spring of 1978, the Sanders installed underground wiring and power poles in the disputed area.
In May 1978, the Chaplins purchased the adjacent undeveloped property, commissioned a survey, discovered the encroachments, and subsequently initiated a legal action.

Procedural Posture:

The Chaplins brought an action in trial court to quiet title to the disputed property against the Sanders.
The trial court quieted title to the road and its shoulder in the Sanders but quieted title to the remaining strip of land in the Chaplins.
Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, as the intermediate appellate court, reversed the trial court in part, finding the hostility element was not met due to the Sanders' actual notice, and directed the trial court to quiet title to the entire disputed property in the Chaplins.
The Sanders, as petitioners, sought review from the Supreme Court of Washington, the state's highest court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a claimant's subjective belief about the true ownership of a property, including actual notice that the property belongs to another, negate the element of 'hostility' required for adverse possession?

Opinions:

Majority - Utter, J.

No. A claimant's subjective belief about who owns the land is irrelevant to determining whether the 'hostility' element of adverse possession has been met. The hostility requirement is satisfied if the claimant treats the land as their own as against the world throughout the statutory period. This objective standard replaces the prior, confusing inquiry into the possessor's state of mind, good faith, or intent to dispossess. The court reasoned that the historical purpose of adverse possession—to quiet titles and encourage land utilization—is best served by focusing on the possessor's objective acts, not their subjective beliefs. The court also held that the 'open and notorious' element was satisfied for the entire disputed parcel because the true owner, McMurray, had actual knowledge of the encroachment for the duration of the statutory period, and the use of the property (mowing, gardening, parking) contrasted sharply with the adjacent overgrown land, providing sufficient notice of the claim.

Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies and simplifies Washington's adverse possession doctrine by explicitly rejecting any inquiry into the claimant's subjective state of mind for the 'hostility' element. By adopting a purely objective test based on the possessor's outward acts, the court overruled a long line of inconsistent precedents that had created confusion. This ruling makes the application of adverse possession more predictable and aligns the state's jurisprudence with the majority of other states and the historical purposes of the doctrine, focusing on quieting titles based on observable use rather than the possessor's intent.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Chaplin v. Sanders (1984)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"