Can seasonal use of a vacation property satisfy the continuous possession requirement for adverse possession, and can successive occupants' possession periods be combined when property descriptions in deeds do not align with the actual area occupied?

The Kuntos occupied a beach house on Hood Canal that was not described in their deed. Their actual deed described an adjacent 50-foot lot. This misalignment affected several property owners in the area due to an old surveying error. The Kuntos and their predecessors had used the land as a summer home for over 10 years. The Howards, who owned land east of the Kuntos, discovered the discrepancy through a survey. They subsequently obtained a deed to the land occupied by the Kuntos from the Moyers, who held record title to the property.

Upon discovering this discrepancy, the Howards initiated legal action to quiet title to the land occupied by the Kuntos. This lawsuit brought the property dispute to the forefront, challenging the Kuntos' occupancy of the beach house and the surrounding land that was not described in their deed.

The Howards initiated a lawsuit to quiet title to the disputed property. The trial court ruled in favor of the Howards, rejecting the Kuntos' claim of adverse possession. Following this decision, the Kuntos filed an appeal with the Washington Court of Appeals, challenging the trial court's ruling.

(Pearson, J.)

Yes. Seasonal use of a vacation property can satisfy the continuous possession requirement for adverse possession, and successive occupants' possession periods can be combined even when property descriptions in deeds do not align with the actual area occupied. The nature and character of the property determine what constitutes continuous possession. For summer homes, seasonal use is sufficient to establish continuity, as these properties are typically occupied only during certain times of the year. This interpretation aligns with the public policy goal of promoting early certainty in land ownership. The privity requirement for tacking possession periods is interpreted liberally, focusing on a reasonable connection between successive occupants rather than strict adherence to deed descriptions. This approach recognizes the practical difficulties in determining exact boundaries in areas like Puget Sound. The key consideration is whether there is a clear chain of possession, even if the formal property descriptions do not perfectly match the occupied land. This flexible interpretation of adverse possession requirements serves to protect long-standing use and occupancy of property, even in cases where technical legal descriptions may be imperfect. The decision emphasizes substance over form, acknowledging that the realities of property use and transfer may not always align precisely with formal legal documents. This approach ensures that the doctrine of adverse possession fulfills its intended purpose of settling land disputes and recognizing long-term, open, and notorious possession as a basis for ownership.

Concurrence (Armstrong, C.J.) Concurred with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.

Concurrence (Petrie, J.) Concurred with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.