In LeBleu v. Aalgaard, Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals, considered whether an oral agreement on a boundary between two lots could affect the “hostility” element in an unfavorable right to property. In LeBleu in the 1990s, the seller sold two adjacent 20-hectare lots, one to Mr. and Mrs. Deno, the other to Aalgaard. Deno to Aalgaard went to their tickets and measured and determined where they thought their respective borders lie. The parties agreed orally on the situation of the border, which was important because Deno helped the Aalgaards build their residence. In general, inconsecant owners use the subject`s property under a false (but good faith) belief that they own it. For example, if your neighbour accidentally built a fence 2 feet above the property boundary on your property 10 years ago, he probably has a legal right to that property in bad possession. Similarly, if you bought a good faith property 7 years ago from a fraudulent seller who gave you a defective paper title, you can now have a clear title on that property by bad possession. In this way, unfavorable property acts to flatten long-neglected property defects by giving ownership to the party that has long used property well. That`s a good thing. You may be familiar with the unfavorable possession by the colloquial term “squatter rights.” In principle, if a person owns a property for a long time without the permission of the rightful owner, he may be entitled to ownership of the property which is illegally owned.
In addition to possessing for the necessary length of time, an offending owner generally has to meet the following 5 requirements: However, negative possession is sometimes criticized as legalized theft – and this criticism certainly also has some value. Occasionally, undecided homeowners move on a property to occupy the explicit object of occupation for long enough to claim legal title through prejudicial possession. If these squatters fill all the elements of the unfavorable property, then the law rewards these offenders with definitive property. It`s not fair. The Court of Appeal in this case went through a tormented analysis to obtain this result, but this may well be related to a tacit examination of the actions. Given that the Aalgaards would have been forced to eliminate substantial improvements, including their barn, scale and part of their home, it appears that the court may have considered the practicalities of the parties` relative position. As a concurring opinion of Justice Fearing put it, “few judicial doctrines create more confusion than the doctrine of negative possession.” Justice Fearing has encouraged the legislature to take this opportunity to clarify matters – it remains to be seen whether his application will be made. In order to assert a right to safe property, the possession of a party must be exclusive (1), (2) effective and continuous, (3) open and notorious and (4) hostile and under a right. Chaplin v.
Sanders, 100 Wn.2d 853, 857, 676 P.2d 431 (1984). All of these elements must be present simultaneously for at least 10 years.