Legal Opinion

Harris v. Urell

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided May 23, 2006No. 33592-1-IIPublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶1 Robert and Tina Urell appeal the trial court’s order quieting title in Janyce Harris by adverse possession of a disputed driveway on their titled property. The Urells argue that (1) Harris did not gain title through adverse possession and (2) even if Harris did gain title, they had regained title through “good faith color of title” adverse possession. We affirm.

Hunt, J.

FACTS

I. The Disputed Property

¶2 Janyce Harris and Robert and Tina Urell own adjacent residential lots. Since 1965, Harris has used and maintained a gravel driveway on the Urells’ titled property. Between 1988 and 1997, after…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. State v. HillWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Chaplin v. SandersWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Ridgeview Properties v. StarbuckWashington Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Daughtry v. Jet Aeration Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Petersen v. Port of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1980

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Mitchell v. Washington State Institute of Public PolicyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  2. Pierce County v. StateCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
  3. Harris v. UrellCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
  4. Skagit County Public Hospital District No. 1 v. Department of RevenueCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2010
  5. Forbes v. AMERICAN BLDG. MAINTENANCE CO.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2009

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API