Easy Adverse Possession Question

What is the name of your state? Washington State.

Approximately nine months ago, I purchased a parcel of land in the Seattle area. A fir tree has been growing on the property line; it is probably 25-30 years old. Under Washington law I understand trees on the property line are jointly owned by neighbors, and that a neighbor who does damage to a tree on the property line will be responsible for compensating the other neighbor for those damages. However, there is a fence built around the property such that the tree is in my "yard." I understand that under Washington State's Adverse Possession Law (RCW 7.28.070):

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=7.28.070

...after seven years of actual/open/notorious possession (since it is in my "yard" and not theirs), a property and everything on it becomes mine. The previous owner of my property had lived there for approximately 20 years, and a fence has been there just as long. For these reasons I believe that under adverse possession the tree became the property of the previous owner, and that property was passed on to me upon the sale of the land.

The neighbors moved in three years ago, while the fence was there and while the tree was on my side of the fence, and have recently demanded that I pay them $2,000 to compensate for the tree. The tree is actually still there, but I built a shed and they are forecasting that the tree will die because I cut some of the roots in order to build the shed.

My obvious question is, do I have adverse possession of the tree, and if so, does that mean I can ignore their claims to it and ignore their demand for compensatory money?

Any comments welcome.What is the name of your state?

The piece of Washington law you linked to in your post refers to claims under color of title. It does not sound like you have a claim under color of title (this is when you have some title although not necessarily good title) so the section you are referring to does not apply. In any case, a claim under color of title in Washington still requires you to have paid the taxes on the disputed property which is doubtful.

I am not saying that you don't have a claim, just that the law you are citing does not seem to apply to your case.

Orcons said:

The piece of Washington law you linked to in your post refers to claims under color of title. It does not sound like you have a claim under color of title (this is when you have some title although not necessarily good title) so the section you are referring to does not apply. In any case, a claim under color of title in Washington still requires you to have paid the taxes on the disputed property which is doubtful.

I am not saying that you don't have a claim, just that the law you are citing does not seem to apply to your case.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the response Orcon; however, that RCW says, "...under *CLAIM AND* color of title..." It is my understanding that CLAIM (legitimate deed) is distinct from COLOR (invalid):

http://www.state.wv.us/WVSCA/jury/adverse.htm (See both "Color of Title" sections; yes, I know it's WV not WA but definitions should hold true). Do you still see a problem? Anyone?

chipdouglas said:

Thank you for the response Orcon; however, that RCW says, "...under *CLAIM AND* color of title..." It is my understanding that CLAIM (legitimate deed) is distinct from COLOR (invalid):

http://www.state.wv.us/WVSCA/jury/adverse.htm (See both "Color of Title" sections; yes, I know it's WV not WA but definitions should hold true). Do you still see a problem? Anyone?

Click to expand...

Yes, I see a problem. You are assuming that one state's law is relevant to a situation in another state.

Before you shoot yourself in the foot, consult with a local real estate attorney.

BelizeBreeze said:

Yes, I see a problem. You are assuming that one state's law is relevant to a situation in another state.

Before you shoot yourself in the foot, consult with a local real estate attorney.

Click to expand...

I see what you're getting at Belize--and I will consult a professional at some point--but we are talking *legal definitions* here, not specific codes or regulations. I would think "color of title" and "claim of title" mean the same thing across the board, and don't vary from state to state. Again, I will seek real counsel, but it seems like these definitions would be universal... any objections to this?

chipdouglas said:

I see what you're getting at Belize--and I will consult a professional at some point--but we are talking *legal definitions* here, not specific codes or regulations. I would think "color of title" and "claim of title" mean the same thing across the board, and don't vary from state to state. Again, I will seek real counsel, but it seems like these definitions would be universal... any objections to this?

Click to expand...

Yes, "it seems to me..." is just another way of assumming.....DON'T.