Howard v. Kunto – Case Brief Summary
Summary of Howard v. Kunto, 3 Wash. App. 393, 477 P.2d 210 (Wash. 1970).
Facts
Several owners of property in a summer resort destination discovered that the land they occupied did not match their deeds (see diagram). Howard owned the deed to the property occupied by Moyer and Moyer held the deed to the property owned by Kunto. Howard and Moyer traded deeds giving Moyer the correct deed and Howard the deed to the land occupied by Kunto.
Howard brought suit to quiet title and to assert his ownership of the real estate occupied by Kunto. Kunto contended that although he had been in possession of the land less than one year, he and his successors had been living on the property for longer than the 10 year statutory period and he therefore acquired the land through adverse possession by tacking.
The trial court entered judgment for Howard, holding that the actual transfer of possession is insufficient to establish privity when the deed does not describe any of the land occupied. Kunto appealed.
Issues
- Is tacking of possession by subsequent occupants permitted if the land is occupied under a mistake of fact?
- May a party prevail on a claim of adverse possession if physical use of the property was limited to summer occupancy?
Holding and Rule
- Yes. Tacking of possession by subsequent occupants is permitted if the land is occupied under a mistake of fact provided the occupants are in privity.
- Yes. A party may prevail on a claim of adverse possession if physical use of the property was limited to summer occupancy.
A purchaser of land may tack the adverse use of his predecessor in interest when the land was intended to be included in the deed between them but was mistakenly omitted from the description. The requirement of privity is merely judicial recognition of the need for some reasonable connection between successive occupants of real property so as to raise their claim of right above the status of a wrongdoer or trespasser.
In this case, successive purchasers received record title to land under the mistaken belief that they were acquiring the adjacent tract. There is a substantial difference between a squatter or trespasser and a good faith purchaser who, along with several neighbors and as the result of an inaccurate survey, mistakenly occupies the property adjacent to that described in his deed.
Public Policy
Early certainty as to the location of land ownership is beneficial. The technical requirements of privity should not be used to upset the long period of occupancy of a good faith purchaser who received an erroneous deed description. In this case there is sufficient privity to allow tacking.
Continuity of Possession
The requisite possession to maintain a claim for adverse possession requires such possession and dominion as ordinarily marks the conduct of owners in general in holding, managing and caring for property of like nature and condition. This property is a summer vacation home and there was continuous possession even though the property was used only in the summer months.
Disposition
Judgment reversed.
See Mannillo v. Gorski for a property law case brief addressing issues of mistaken belief and open and notorious possession in the context of adverse possession of real estate.