Robert Sydow v. Douglass Properties, LLC

Summary

The Washington Court of Appeals, Division Three, addresses a boundary dispute involving Robert Sydow’s claim that he acquired a strip of land by adverse possession. The court holds that the undisputed evidence established the elements of adverse possession as a matter of law and rejects the asserted common grantor and equitable estoppel defenses. It reverses summary judgment for Douglass Properties, reinstates Sydow’s claims, and remands for partial summary judgment in Sydow’s favor on adverse possession.

Holdings

1. The undisputed evidence established as a matter of law that Sydow adversely possessed the disputed property for the statutory period through possession that was open and notorious, actual and uninterrupted, exclusive, and hostile.
2. A transfer of the adversely possessed property does not interrupt or restart the statutory period when the claimant's possession remains continuous and successive record owners have actual or constructive knowledge of it.
3. The common grantor doctrine did not apply because the deed's legal-description boundary was not a visible boundary that had supplanted the deed line; the only visible boundary was Sydow's fence.
4. Equitable estoppel did not bar Sydow's claim because Douglass could not prove a representation attributable to Sydow on which Douglass reasonably relied, and Douglass knew or could discover the true facts before purchasing.
5. Dismissal of Sydow's trespass, timber trespass, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims was erroneous because it was based on the mistaken conclusion that Sydow did not own the disputed property.
6. Sydow was entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs at trial and on appeal under RCW 7.28.083 because he was the prevailing party in an action asserting title by adverse possession.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the undisputed evidence established that Sydow acquired title to the disputed strip by adverse possession.
2. Whether the transfer of record title among successive owners interrupted or restarted the adverse-possession statutory period.
3. Whether the common grantor doctrine barred Sydow's adverse-possession claim.
4. Whether equitable estoppel barred Sydow's adverse-possession claim.
5. Whether dismissal of Sydow's tort claims was proper once the trial court rejected his ownership claim.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded