Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.28.085 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) In any action seeking to establish an adverse claimant as the legal owner of a fee or other interest in forestland based on a claim of adverse possession, and in any defense to an action brought by the holder of record title for recovery of title to or possession of a fee or other interest in forestland where such defense is based on a claim of adverse possession, the adverse claimant shall not be deemed to have established open and notorious possession of the forestlands at issue unless, as a minimum requirement, the adverse claimant establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the adverse claimant has made or erected substantial improvements, which improvements have remained entirely or partially on such lands for at least ten years. If the interests of justice so require, the making, erecting, and continuous presence of substantial improvements on the lands at issue, in the absence of additional acts by the adverse claimant, may be found insufficient to establish open and notorious possession.
(2) This section shall not apply to any adverse claimant who establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the adverse claimant occupied the lands at issue and made continuous use thereof for at least ten years in good faith reliance on location stakes or other boundary markers set by a registered land surveyor purporting to establish the boundaries of property to which the adverse claimant has record title.
(3) For purposes of this section:
(a) "Adverse claimant" means any person, other than the holder of record title, occupying the lands at issue together with any prior occupants of the land in privity with such person by purchase, devise, or decent [descent];
(b) "Claim of adverse possession" does not include a claim asserted under RCW 7.28.050, 7.28.070, or 7.28.080;
(c) "Forestland" has the meaning given in *RCW 84.33.100; and
(d) "Substantial improvement" means a permanent or semipermanent structure or enclosure for which the costs of construction exceeded fifty thousand dollars.
(4) This section shall not apply to any adverse claimant who, before June 11, 1998, acquired title to the lands in question by adverse possession under the law then in effect.
(5) This section shall not apply to any adverse claimant who seeks to assert a claim or defense of adverse possession in an action against any person who, at the time such action is commenced, owns less than twenty acres of forestland in the state of Washington.
[ 1998 c 57 s 1.]

Notes:

*Reviser's note: RCW 84.33.100 was repealed by 2001 c 249 s 16.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 2001–2020 · leading case: Acord v. Pettit, 302 P.3d 1265 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Acord v. Pettit, 302 P.3d 1265 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 9× “RCW 7.28.085 did not take effect until June 11, 1998.”
Proctor v. Huntington, 238 P.3d 1117 (Wash. 2010). “RP at 914-15 (citing RCW 7.28.085). Proctor sued before 10 years had elapsed since the house's construction.”
Kunkel v. Fisher, 23 P.3d 1128 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “070; RCW 7.28.085. [13] Miller v. Anderson, 91 Wash.”
Proctor v. Huntington, 169 Wash. 2d 491 (Wash. 2010). “RP at 914-15 (citing RCW 7.28.085). Proctor sued before 10 years had elapsed since the house’s construction.”
Kunkel v. Fisher, 106 Wash. App. 599 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “070; RCW 7.28.085. Miller, 91 Wn. App. at 827 ; Mood v.”
Proctor v. Huntington, 192 P.3d 958 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “[4] The court had previously dismissed the Huntingtons' adverse possession claim, finding that they had failed to meet all of the elements under RCW 7.28.085. [5] An expert appraiser, Jim Lyons, testified that this was the fair market value for a one-acre parcel of Proctor's…”
Proctor v. Huntington, 146 Wash. App. 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “The court had previously dismissed the Huntingtons’ adverse possession claim, finding that they had failed to meet all of the elements under RCW 7.28.085. An expert appraiser, Jim Lyons, testified that this was the fair market value for a one-acre parcel of Proctor’s property if…”
Tim Thomson & Dan Thomson v. R & H Fam., Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 10× “They first argue that RCW 7.28.085, which imposes a stricter standard for establishing adverse possession over forestland, should apply to defeat R&H’s claims.”
Eddie E. Acord, et ux v. Britton K. Pettit, et ux (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 9× “RCW 7.28.085 did not take effect until June 11, 1998.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.28.085(1) — 3 cases
Acord v. Pettit, 302 P.3d 1265 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 7.28.085 did not take effect until June 11, 1998.”
Eddie E. Acord, et ux v. Britton K. Pettit, et ux (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 7.28.085 did not take effect until June 11, 1998.”
Tim Thomson & Dan Thomson v. R & H Fam., Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “They first argue that RCW 7.28.085, which imposes a stricter standard for establishing adverse possession over forestland, should apply to defeat R&H’s claims.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.28.085(3)(d) — 1 case
Tim Thomson & Dan Thomson v. R & H Fam., Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “They first argue that RCW 7.28.085, which imposes a stricter standard for establishing adverse possession over forestland, should apply to defeat R&H’s claims.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.28.085(4) — 2 cases
Eddie E. Acord, et ux v. Britton K. Pettit, et ux (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 7.28.085 did not take effect until June 11, 1998.”
Tim Thomson & Dan Thomson v. R & H Fam., Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “They first argue that RCW 7.28.085, which imposes a stricter standard for establishing adverse possession over forestland, should apply to defeat R&H’s claims.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.