Does a purchaser who receives record title to one tract under the mistaken belief that he owns an adjacent tract, and who occupies the adjacent tract, establish adverse possession by tacking the periods of possession of predecessors who made the same mistake, where occupancy was only seasonal?

A house on the shore of Hood Canal in Mason County was occupied by McCall as early as 1932. McCall's deed described a 50-foot parcel immediately west of the lot on which his house actually stood. Successive owners received deeds with the same erroneous description, each taking possession of the lot with the house, which was used as a summer recreational retreat. Several neighbors to the west were similarly situated. The Millers, the Kuntos' immediate predecessors, commissioned a survey that mistakenly indicated the deed description matched the physical occupation, placed boundary stakes, and built a dock and other improvements. The Kuntos took possession in 1959 under a deed from the Millers. In 1960, the Howards, who owned land to the east, had the entire area surveyed using the government survey and discovered the mismatch. They learned that they held record title to the land occupied by the Moyers, and that the Moyers held record title to the land occupied by the Kuntos. The Howards obtained a conveyance of the Moyers' record title to the Kunto tract in exchange for conveying the land on which the Moyers' house stood. Neither the Moyers nor their predecessors had ever asserted ownership of the land the Kuntos and their predecessors possessed. The Howards and the Yearlys then sued to quiet title. When the action began in August 1960, the Kuntos had occupied the property for less than a year.

The Howards and Yearlys filed an action in Mason County in August 1960 to quiet title to the disputed tract. The Kuntos asserted adverse possession by cross complaint. After a long, largely inexcusable delay, the trial court ruled for the plaintiffs and entered a decree quieting title in them. It found that the Kuntos failed to prove continuity of possession or estate sufficient to tack their possession to that of their predecessors, and that their summer-only occupancy was not continuous. The Kuntos appealed to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two, which reversed. A petition for rehearing was denied on November 2, 1970, and the Washington Supreme Court denied review on November 25, 1970.

(Pearson, J.)

Yes. Seasonal occupancy of a summer beach home satisfies the continuity requirement, and successive purchasers who mistakenly received record title to an adjacent tract may tack their periods of possession to establish adverse possession.

Adverse possession requires actual possession that is uninterrupted, open and notorious, hostile and exclusive, and under a claim of right made in good faith for the statutory period of ten years under RCW 4.16.020. Butler v. Anderson, 71 Wash. 2d 60 (1967). Possession must be of the kind that ordinarily marks the conduct of owners in holding, managing, and caring for property of like nature and condition. Because the property was a summer beach home, occupancy during the summer months, together with the continued existence of improvements on the land and beach, constituted uninterrupted possession. Holding otherwise would ignore the nature and condition of the property. Continuity does not require mathematical continuity or constant physical presence; it is enough that the land is occupied during the period of the year it is capable of use.

On tacking, privity is traditionally supplied by a deed between successive occupants. Washington already permits tacking where the land was intended to be conveyed but was mistakenly omitted from the deed description. Buchanan v. Cassell, 53 Wash. 2d 611 (1959); Faubion v. Elder, 49 Wash. 2d 300 (1956). Privity is better understood as a reasonable connection between successive occupants that raises their claim above that of a trespasser. A good-faith purchaser who occupies land because of an erroneous description differs substantially from a squatter. Public policy also favors early certainty of land boundaries, and purchasers cannot reasonably be expected to hire surveyors to verify deed descriptions on irregular shorelines.

Where successive purchasers receive record title to tract A believing they are acquiring contiguous tract B, and possession of tract B passes in a continuous manner for over ten years, sufficient privity exists to permit tacking and establish adverse possession as a matter of law. The rule applies with particular force where the record holder of tract B acquired it with knowledge of the discrepancy. The judgment is reversed, and title is quieted in the Kuntos.