Mugaas v. Smith

Supreme Court of Washington · 1949 · Property

Propertyadverse possessionhostileadverse possessionrecord titlebona fide purchaserrecording actsmatured title

Facts

Mugaas claimed title by adverse possession to a strip of land 135 feet long and up to 3 1/2 feet wide. The evidence supported a finding that her adverse possession dated back to 1910, and a fence between 1910 and 1928 clearly marked the boundary line she claimed. The fence later disintegrated, and by the time the Smiths purchased in 1941 under a legal description and record title that included the strip, there was no fence or other visible marker showing Mugaas's claim. The Smiths were notified of her claim before doing work on the strip and before placing the house that encroached on it.

Issue

Whether a person who has already acquired title by adverse possession loses that title when the visible signs of possession later disappear and a subsequent bona fide purchaser acquires record title to the disputed land without notice of the adverse-possession claim. The court also considered whether the Smiths established estoppel against Mugaas.

Rule

Once title has fully vested by adverse possession for the statutory period, it cannot be divested by parol abandonment, relinquishment, verbal declarations, or other acts short of those required to convey deeded title. A matured adverse-possession title is not within the recording acts and is not extinguished by a later conveyance of record title to a bona fide purchaser. Washington's cited statute concerning purchasers from the record title holder applies only to community property and does not defeat adverse-possession title.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Spokane, Lena Ortiz enclosed and openly used a two-foot strip next to her garden for more than the full statutory period, after which title by adverse possession fully matured. Fifteen years later, the fence rotted away and Lena stopped using the strip. Her neighbor, Colin Mercer, then bought the adjacent parcel under a deed whose legal description included the strip.

If Colin sues to quiet title based on his recorded deed and argues Lena lost any rights when the fence disappeared, who should prevail?

Explanation. The governing rule is that once title has become fully vested by adverse possession, it cannot be divested by parol abandonment, relinquishment, verbal declarations, or other acts short of what would be required to convey deeded title. The later disappearance of visible possession does not undo a matured title. Thus Colin's later deed does not defeat Lena's already vested title.