ownership claim in Washington

2006Anderson, 80 Wn.

2006Because the Urells failed to show that either they or their predecessors, the Wattses, had used the disputed property such that any reasonable person would have thought that they owned the property, their use was not “open and notorious.” See Anderson, 80 Wn.

2025However, generally “a defendant’s sentence is determined based on the law in effect at the time the defendant committed the crime for which [they are] being sentenced.” State v. Jenks, 12 Wn.

2022“In other words, the claimant must show that the true owner knew, or should have known, that the [] occupancy constituted an ownership claim.” Harris, 133 Wn.

2021App. 833, 836 , 963 P.2d 890 (1998), we rejected the city of Seattle’s ownership claim to a street dedicated in 1884, in part by applying the nonuser statute.

2021There, a 1936 aerial photograph showed no evidence of street development; a 1920 map noted the area was “impassable”; and an expert testified that the area showed “ ‘no evidence of public improvement,’ ” such as utilities, and that the street area was 7 No. 80232-1-I/8 “ ‘impassable to vehicular traffic.’ ” Real Progress, 91 Wn.

2010Marassi, 71 Wash.App. at 917 , 859 P.2d 605 (applying the proportionality approach where the parties' contract provided for attorney fees and costs to the "successful party"). ¶ 63 Cornish brought two major claims against both Virginia Limited and Etherington—an ownership claim and an occupancy claim.

2010Marassi, 71 Wash.App. at 917 , 859 P.2d 605 (applying the proportionality approach where the parties' contract provided for attorney fees and costs to the "successful party"). ¶ 63 Cornish brought two major claims against both Virginia Limited and Etherington—an ownership claim and an occupancy claim.

2006Anderson, 80 Wash.App. at 405 , 907 P.2d 305 .

2006Because the Urells failed to show that neither they nor their predecessors, the Watts, had used the disputed property such that any reasonable person would have thought that they owned the property, their use was not "open and notorious." See Anderson, 80 Wash.App. at 404-05 , 907 P.2d 305 .

1988(Italics omitted.) Applying Chaplin 1 and Krona v. Brett, 72 Wn.2d 535 , 433 P.2d 858 (1967), the record supports the conclusion the District knew, or should have known, that the construction of the fenced-in mobile home park situated on the disputed area manifested an ownership claim.

1988(Italics omitted.) Applying Chaplin 1 and Krona v. Brett, 72 Wn.2d 535 , 433 P.2d 858 (1967), the record supports the conclusion the District knew, or should have known, that the construction of the fenced-in mobile home park situated on the disputed area manifested an ownership claim.