Opinion ID: 1982246
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hostility and Exclusiveness

Text: In the present case, there is no dispute that the wall has encroached twelve inches onto the original four-foot right of way for more than the fifteen-year statutory period and that its presence has been not only actual and continuous, but also open and notorious  it would surely have been selfdefeating to attempt to conceal a wall. The principal issue is whether the possession by Ms. Tippett and her predecessors in title has been exclusive and hostile, as she contends, or merely permissive, as Mr. Smith asserts. `Exclusive' possession, for the purpose of establishing adversity, means that the claimant holds possession of the property for himself as his own and not for another. 5 POWELL, supra, § 1013(2) at 91-19. If a claimant's possession meets these criteria, his possession need not be absolutely exclusive. Id. at 91-21. A general statement of the element of exclusivity is that the adverse claimant's possession cannot be shared with the true owner. J.P. HAND & J.C. SMITH, NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, § 6.06 at 135 (1988), and authorities cited at n. 44. Possession is exclusive if it is of a type that would be expected of a true owner of the land in question. Id.; see Crites v. Koch, 49 Wash.App. 171, 175, 741 P.2d 1005, 1008 (1987). In the present case, the issue of exclusivity is closely related to the question of hostility, and the latter element is the principal focus of the dispute between the parties. When used in the context of adverse possession, hostile is a term of art. It does not imply ill will. 7 POWELL, supra, § 1013(2) at 91-18; 5 THOMPSON, supra, § 2548 at 627. A leading commentator has aptly capsulized the concept as follows: In order to establish adverse possession, the possession must be openly hostile. Hostile possession has been defined as possession that is opposed and antagonistic to all other claims, and which conveys the clear message that the possessor intends to possess the land as his own. It is not necessary that he intend to take away from the owner something which he knows to belong to another or even that he be indifferent concerning the legal title. It is the intent to possess, and not the intent to take irrespective of his right, which governs. 7 POWELL, supra, § 1013(2) at 91-17 (citations omitted).