Case Title: Fadden v. Purvis

Citation: 459 P.2d 385, 77 Wash. 2d 23

Docket Number: 

State: washington

Court: Washington Supreme Court

Date: 1969-10-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
77 Wn.2d 23 (1969) 459 P.2d 385 DONALD K. FADDEN et al., Respondents, v. RALPH PURVIS et al., Appellants.[*] No. 39955. The Supreme Court of Washington, Department One. October 2, 1969. Ralph Purvis, pro se. Skeel, McKelvy, Henke, Evenson & Uhlman and Frederick V. Betts, for respondents. WEAVER, J. Defendants appeal from a judgment that fixes with particularity the property or division line between defendants' property on the north and plaintiffs' property on the south. Both properties abut on Hood Canal. Shortly after H.D. Fadden (father and predecessor in interest of plaintiff Donald K. Fadden) purchased his property in 1936, he had it surveyed by Mr. Treadwell, chief engineer of the Port of Seattle and licensed civil engineer. Permanent cement markers were placed at the four corners of the property. In 1937 or 1938, H.D. Fadden constructed a small garage near the northern boundary; it was used as living quarters *24 for several years. He also planted a small orchard near the northeast corner of the property. In 1951, defendants, purchased the property to the north. They had Olin Sprague, a licensed surveyor, survey the property. Mr. Sprague's survey disclosed that the Treadwell line was too far north. As a result, Mr. Fadden agreed to and did move the northwest and northeast cement corner markers approximately 3 feet to the south, thus placing the garage closer to the property line. Defendants built a fence along the Sprague line from the shore eastward, a portion of the distance of the then common boundary. Plaintiffs purchased their property from H.D. Fadden in 1953. They maintained a tool shed "right up to the fence line," and piled lumber near it. In 1964, defendants again had the property line surveyed by George Roats, a licensed surveyor. This was the third survey of the property line. The Roats' survey fixed a line approximately 25 feet south of the Sprague survey along which defendants had built their fence in 1951. The Roats' survey disclosed that a substantial portion of plaintiffs' house and garage encroached upon the disputed strip of land. We agree with the trial judge's observation that "it doesn't appear ... that there is any substantial question of fact in this case." The judge found that plaintiffs, relying upon defendants' survey, believed the Sprague line to be the division line and acted upon this belief for more than the 10-year period required for adverse possession. The trial judge stated: Fundamentally, this is a factual appeal. Was the plaintiffs' possession of the disputed strip of land actual, open, notorious, hostile, uninterrupted and exclusive under a claim of right for the statutory period? [1] In Krona v. Brett, 72 Wn.2d 535, 433 P.2d 858 (1967), this court stated: A mistake in fixing a boundary does not preclude a possession based upon that boundary from becoming adverse, for it is the intention of the party claiming a disputed area that is pertinent. If a party claims possession to a visible boundary in a manner consistent with the necessary attributes *26 of adverse possession, then the character of the possession is adverse. Brown v. Hubbard, 42 Wn.2d 867, 259 P.2d 391 (1953). See also, Houplin v. Stoen, 72 Wn.2d 131, 431 P.2d 998 (1967). The facts of the instant case meet this test. We cannot disturb the trial court's findings. Finally, defendants urge that the court erred when it extended the property line, as determined eastward from the end of defendants' fence placed upon the Sprague survey line, to the undisputed eastern boundary of plaintiffs' property. We cannot agree. [2] As this court pointed out in Frolund v. Frankland, 71 Wn.2d 812, 817, 431 P.2d 188 (1967): When defendants had the Sprague survey made in 1951, built their fence in accordance with it, and had H.D. Fadden move his northeast concrete corner marker 3 feet to the south, they, as rural landowners of ordinary prudence, were upon notice and inquiry that H.D. Fadden claimed the property south of the fence and marker. There is nothing to indicate that the division boundary was to be anything but a straight line. The existence of the small orchard and cement marker in the northeast corner of plaintiffs' property is sufficient to show possession and occupancy. Our conclusion is supported by the rationale of Frolund v. Frankland, supra. The judgment is affirmed. HUNTER, C.J., FINLEY, HAMILTON, and McGOVERN, JJ., concur. December 9, 1969. Petition for rehearing denied. [*] Reported in 459 P.2d 385.