The Whelans filed suit to claim adverse possession of a 12.25-foot strip of land belonging to Allen and Michelle Loun that was located along the south of the Whelans’s property. There was a fence located 12 feet outside the Whelan’s property, but for the previous 22 years, that strip of land was treated as if it was part of the Whelans’s property. Mr. Haberman, who owned the Whelans’s property from 1986 through 1990, and Mr. Vasquez, who possessed the land from 1998 through 2008, both declared that the fence was in the same location and general condition as when they owned the property. Thus, the fence has demarcated the boundary line for at least 22 years. Mr. Vasquez declared that he considered the fence jointly owned, but emphasized that he thought it marked the boundary line between the two properties. Mr. Vasquez repaired and improved the fence, continuously walking across and taking advantage of the 12.25-foot strip of land, which arguably is an exercise of dominion over the disputed strip of land, nor did they ever give permission to the Whelans or Vasquez to use the land. In light of these facts, the court granted summary judgment to the Whelans. The Louns appealed. On appeal, do you believe the court upheld the summary judgment? [Michael Whelan and Lynn Whelan, v. Allen Loun and Michelle Loun, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3. (2011).]

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Looking for a Similar Assignment? Our Experts can help. Use the coupon code SAVE30 to get your first order at 30% off!