Mugaas v. Smith
9 A.L.R. 2d 846, 206 P.2d. 332, 33 Wash. 2d 429 (1949)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A title acquired by adverse possession is a fully vested legal title that is not divested or extinguished by a subsequent conveyance of the record title to a bona fide purchaser. Title by adverse possession is not an unrecorded conveyance subject to the protections of recording statutes.
Facts:
- From 1910 until 1928, a fence enclosed a strip of land, marking it as part of the property belonging to Dora B. Mugaas.
- During this period, Mugaas used the strip of land in a manner sufficient to establish title by adverse possession.
- After 1928, the fence disintegrated and eventually disappeared completely.
- In 1941, Delmar C. Smith and his wife purchased the adjacent parcel of land.
- The legal description in the Smiths' deed included the disputed strip of land that Mugaas had previously possessed.
- At the time of the Smiths' purchase, there were no physical markers, such as a fence, to indicate Mugaas's claim to the disputed strip.
- The Smiths were notified of Mugaas's claim to the strip of land before they began construction or moved a house onto it.
Procedural Posture:
- Dora B. Mugaas filed an action against Delmar C. Smith and his wife in a Washington state trial court.
- Mugaas sought to quiet title to a strip of land and to compel the Smiths to remove encroachments.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Mugaas, quieting title to the property in her name and ordering the Smiths to remove their buildings.
- The Smiths, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Washington.
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 the conveyance of record title to a bona fide purchaser extinguish a title to a portion of that land previously acquired by a neighbor through adverse possession, even if the physical evidence of the adverse possession is no longer visible at the time of purchase?
Opinions:
Majority - Hill, J.
No. A conveyance of record title to a bona fide purchaser does not extinguish a title previously acquired by adverse possession. Once title has vested in an adverse possessor, it is a full and complete legal title that cannot be lost by mere abandonment or by the original owner's act of selling the property to an unknowing buyer. The court reasoned that recording statutes, which protect bona fide purchasers from prior unrecorded conveyances, do not apply to titles acquired by operation of law, such as adverse possession. Such a title is not created by a written instrument that could be recorded. To hold otherwise would require an adverse possessor to maintain constant, visible signs of possession forever, defeating the purpose of statutes of limitation and creating instability in property rights.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the nature of title acquired by adverse possession as a vested, original title, not a derivative one that needs recording to be protected. It clarifies that the protections afforded to bona fide purchasers under recording acts do not extend to defeating unrecorded titles created by operation of law. The ruling places a burden on purchasers of real property to look beyond the public record and conduct a physical inspection to discover potential claims based on possession, as the record title may not be dispositive of true ownership. This reinforces the stability of titles gained through long-standing possession, ensuring they are as secure as titles acquired by deed.
Unlock the full brief for Mugaas v. Smith