Chaplin v. Sanders
Washington Supreme Court
676 P.2d 431 (1984)
- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
Peter and Patricia Sanders (defendants) owned land adjacent to land owned by Kent, Barbara, Kenneth, and Hazel Chaplin (plaintiffs). Around 1958, the Hibbards converted their land into a trailer park. Because the boundary was unclear, the Hibbards chose a drainage ditch to serve as the property line and built a road nearby. In 1960, neighbor McMurray had his land surveyed and found that the true boundary was not at the ditch and that the road encroached on his property. In 1962, Hibbard sold his land to the Gilberts. The sales contract recognized the true boundary. All subsequent owners of the Hibbards’ land had no notice until the Sanderses acquired it in 1976. The Sanderses had actual notice of the true boundary. The Sanderses continued to operate the trailer park on the land, using the road regularly. A strip of land between the road and the ditch was regularly used by residents, who maintained and planted flowers on it. In 1978, the Chaplins purchased McMurray’s undeveloped land without knowledge of its true boundary. The Chaplins learned of the true boundary and sued to quiet title. The trial court found that the Sanderses had adversely possessed the road but not the parcel between the road and the ditch. The Court of Appeals reversed as to the road, finding that the Sanderses had not established hostility. The Sanderses appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Utter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
