Timberlane Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Brame
901 P.2d 1074, 1995 Wash. App. LEXIS 405, 79 Wash. App. 303 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner can acquire fee simple title to a homeowners association's common area through adverse possession by using the property in a manner that is open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous for the statutory period, even if the owner's initial use was permissive as a member of the association.
Facts:
- The Timberlane subdivision contains common properties owned in fee simple by the Timberlane Homeowners Association ('the Association').
- All lot owners in the subdivision are members of the Association and have a nonexclusive easement right of enjoyment in the common properties.
- In 1975, the previous owners of Lot 210 constructed a fence and a cement patio that encroached upon the adjacent common area, effectively enclosing it as part of their yard.
- From 1975 onward, the owners of Lot 210 and their successors used the enclosed area exclusively.
- In 1989, Mary and Charles Brame purchased Lot 210 and continued to use the enclosed common area as their private yard, planting trees and bushes.
- In 1991, the Brames replaced the old fence with a new one in largely the same location.
- In 1992, the Association sent a letter to the Brames demanding they remove the encroaching fence and patio from the common area.
- The Brames refused the Association's demand, asserting that they and their predecessors had acquired title to the property through adverse possession.
Procedural Posture:
- The Timberlane Homeowners Association, Inc. sued Mary and Charles Brame in trial court to quiet title to a disputed common area and for an injunction to remove encroachments.
- The Brames filed a counterclaim seeking to quiet title to the property in their name under the doctrine of adverse possession.
- The Association moved for summary judgment, arguing the Brames could not adversely possess the easement rights of other members.
- The Brames filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on their adverse possession claim.
- The trial court granted the Association's motion, denied the Brames' motion, quieted title in the Association, and issued an injunction for removal of the encroachments.
- The Brames, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Washington Court of Appeals.
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 homeowner's continuous and exclusive use of an adjacent common area, including enclosing it with a fence and building a patio, constitute adverse possession sufficient to acquire fee simple title from the Homeowners Association that holds the title?
Opinions:
Majority - Seinfeld, J.
Yes. A homeowner's use of a common area that exceeds their permissive easement rights and demonstrates dominion consistent with a true owner for the statutory period constitutes adverse possession. The court first found that the Association lacked standing to enforce its members' easement rights, as its governing documents only authorized physical maintenance, not litigation on behalf of members. However, addressing the Brames' counterclaim against the Association's fee interest, the court found all elements of adverse possession were met. The Brames' and their predecessors' use was (1) open and notorious due to the obvious fence and patio, (2) actual and uninterrupted for over ten years, (3) exclusive because the area was fully enclosed, and (4) hostile. Although the initial use was permissive under the members' easement, constructing a fence and patio far exceeded that permissive right, becoming a 'distinct and positive assertion of a right hostile to the owner.' This exercise of dominion over the land was consistent with the actions of a true owner, thereby satisfying the hostility element and perfecting their claim for adverse possession of the fee simple title.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that a member of a homeowners association can adversely possess the fee simple title to a common area owned by that association. It establishes that actions fundamentally inconsistent with a nonexclusive easement, such as fencing off land for private use, can transform a permissive use into a hostile one for the purposes of an adverse possession claim. The ruling serves as a warning to homeowners associations that they must be vigilant in policing encroachments onto common areas or risk losing title to them. It also highlights the importance of drafting governing documents that explicitly grant the association standing to litigate to protect members' collective property rights.
