ITT Rayonier, Inc. v. Bell
774 P.2d 6, 112 Wash. 2d 754 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a claim for adverse possession, the claimant must prove exclusive possession, which requires exercising dominion over the land in a manner consistent with a true owner, including the exclusion of others. The claimant's subjective belief regarding ownership or intent to dispossess is irrelevant to the hostility element of adverse possession.
Facts:
- In 1947, ITT Rayonier, Inc. (ITT) purchased property on Lake Ozette and continuously paid property taxes on it.
- In 1972, Arthur Bell purchased a houseboat and moored it adjacent to the ITT property.
- Over the next decade, Bell built a woodshed, a sauna, and an outhouse on the property, and used it seasonally, often being away during the winter.
- At the time of purchase, Bell believed the adjacent land was owned by the State.
- Two other families, the Klocks and the Olesens, co-owned a houseboat moored near Bell's for approximately 20 years.
- The Klocks and Olesens regularly used the disputed property for purposes such as digging a hole for an outhouse.
- Bell never attempted to exclude the Klocks and Olesens from using the property and never posted 'No Trespassing' signs or erected a fence.
Procedural Posture:
- ITT Rayonier, Inc. sued Arthur Bell in a state trial court (Clallam County) to quiet title to the property.
- Bell filed a counterclaim, asserting he had acquired title to the property through adverse possession.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of ITT, quieting title in ITT.
- Bell, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of ITT, the appellee.
- The Supreme Court of Washington granted review of the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 person's use of land constitute 'exclusive' possession for the purposes of an adverse possession claim when that person acquiesces in the similar use of the land by others?
Opinions:
Majority - Pearson, J.
No. A person's use of land does not constitute exclusive possession for an adverse possession claim when that person fails to act as a true owner would by allowing others to share in the use of the property. The element of exclusivity requires that the claimant possess the property in a manner expected of an owner, which includes exercising dominion and excluding others from using it. Bell's shared use of the property with the Klocks and Olesens demonstrated a 'shared occupation of land,' not the exclusive dominion characteristic of true ownership. While Bell made some improvements, his occasional use and acquiescence to his neighbors' use did not rise to the level of exclusive possession required by the statute. The court also clarified its prior holding in Chaplin v. Sanders, reaffirming that the 'hostility' element is determined by the claimant's objective actions of treating the land as their own against the world, making the claimant's subjective belief or 'good faith' regarding title irrelevant.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies two critical elements of adverse possession doctrine in Washington. First, it clarifies that the 'exclusivity' requirement is not met by mere use, but demands that the claimant exercise control consistent with true ownership, which generally includes excluding others. Second, and more significantly, it emphatically reaffirms the court's holding in Chaplin v. Sanders, cementing the rule that an adverse possessor's subjective state of mind—whether they believe the land is theirs or know they are trespassing—is irrelevant to the element of hostility. This objective standard simplifies the analysis by focusing solely on the possessor's outward actions, preventing claimants from 'thinking themselves out of' a valid claim.
