View this case and other resources at:
Citation. Howard v. Kunto, 3 Wn. App. 393, 477 P.2d 210 (Ct. App. 1970)
Brief Fact Summary. In this case, the descriptions in several deeds, including the Plaintiff, Howard (Plaintiff), and the Defendant, Kunto (Defendant), did not fit the land occupied by the deed holders. Facts.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. To constitute adverse possession, there must be actual possession, which is uninterrupted, open and notorious, hostile and exclusive and under a claim of right made in good faith for the statutory period.
The facts disclose that the Defendant’s predecessor in title, McCall, back in 1932 resided in the house occupied by the Defendant and the McCall deed described a 50-foot wide parcel on the shore of a canal. The parcel described in the deed, however, is not the land upon which McCall’s house stood. McCall’s house stood on one lot and the deed described the adjacent lot. Several other property holders to the west of the Defendant, not parties herein, have a similar problem. The Defendant’s immediate predecessors in title, the Millers, decided to build a dock and had a survey performed which showed that the deed description and the physical occupation were in conformity. The Defendant took title from the Millers in 1959. In 1960, the Plaintiff, who held land to the east of the Defendant, desired to convey a