I've never seen anything this far off...

I hope that lawyer is smart enough not to put any eggs in the AP basket. Both parties relied on the fence at transfer and for 25 years after. I am betting that's the ticket.
As a side note, I wonder if the Surveyor spent any time looking at the facts or just tossed the Deed holders into turmoil...

It would be interesting to see the record documents and surveys.

Seems like a slam dunk unwritten rights case. Lawyer Pierce will likely clear this up pretty quick and collect her fee from the bank.

Could be a surveyor in trouble here.

> As a side note, I wonder if the Surveyor spent any time looking at the facts or just tossed the Deed holders into turmoil...

I would certainly hope that most any surveyor who starts to realize that the corners are falling way off of the apparent parcel, would start looking at a lot more evidence and facts before finalizing the survey. Fences and houses are certainly evidence as to where the corners lie.

The clip showed an attorney with a GIS map with the property line bisecting the house as described in the narrative. Surely they aren't basing the foreclosure "survey" on the GIS image. Regardless, the older couple has occupied the property for 20+ years. Would this qualify for adverse possession if this is the beginning of the boundary being contested or does the clock start when the occupation becomes contested?

> ... Would this qualify for adverse possession if this is the beginning of the boundary being contested or does the clock start when the occupation becomes contested?
The clock starts when the adjoining owner becomes aware - or should have become aware - of the possession. A stout and highly visible fence certainly provides such notice. And even if there were no fence the house itself, and it's curtilage, could not be denied.

Some states require that knowledge of the use of another's land has to a part of adverse possession and that you can't accidently gain title to land used without that prior intent.

My understanding based a a similar case I dealt with here with a driveway encroaching onto a parcel being foreclosed on and a prescriptive easement and as explained to me by a very knowledgeable lawyer:

If the adverse possession was perfected before the mortgage then the land adverse possessed should be free and clear of a mortgage. The neighbor can not mortgage that which he no longer owns.

If the adverse possession is perfected after the mortgage then the people may hold title to the land with the lien of a mortgage. There is also the possibility that the foreclosure may reset the clock back and extinguish the adverse possession. That will depend on the Laws of your State.

My question is didn't the Bank require a survey before they approved the loan, and what about Title Insurance?

> Some states require that knowledge of the use of another's land has to a part of adverse possession and that you can't accidently gain title to land used without that prior intent.

The doctrine of occupation by "pure mistake" was understood to defeat the element of hostility of possession at one time (from c.1930 to c. 1960) in both Oregon and Oklahoma. Interesting, for me anyway, is that the Oklahoma Court (Threet v. Polk) cited an Oregon Court decision (Norgard v. Busher) that reversed that position. The law in Oregon is now that occupation under mistaken belief of ownership is proof of hostility and in Oklahoma is that the occupiers state of mind has no bearing on the matter.

I am aware of no case in Washington State that addresses the matter one way or the other.

possibly estoppel by laches?

A crucial piece of evidence would be a "loan survey" of the foreclosed property showing the fence as the property line.

In Oklahoma there would be a stack of them..:pinch:

possibly estoppel by laches?

> A crucial piece of evidence would be a "loan survey" of the foreclosed property showing the fence as the property line.
That would certainly provide a record of the fence's long term presence.

Very good points and true in many jurisdictions. My thought is I know of no State that allows AP to ripen when nobody knows about the issue. It is more of an acquiescence in my opinion. I have seen the wrong argument cost big time more than once...

Washington used to be a "state of mind State", not sure now. Basic difference is that in States where you need to know you're taking someone else's property (has to be adverse state of mind) then mistake will not cut it, but squatter's rights apply.

There definitely seem to be bona fide rights involved here. Be interesting to see how this plays out. I sure feel for the old couple. Anyone care to bet the surveyor that stamped the bank's survey never set foot anywhere near the property?

A crucial aspect to this situation in most of the states I've practiced in is whether the taxes were paid and by whom for the claimed land.

Oof...I feel bad for the couple. There's gotta be someway to legally work this out.

Didn't take me long to locate this property. A very small clue in the video led me to the owners name and from there an address in Graham and from there to the Pierce Co. GIS. Gadzooks I hate those.
Turns out that there is a survey recorded on the subject property filed under Pierce County Recording Number 201311125001. I hesitate to try to link or copy said map to this forum but if you are interested in it enough it is not hard to get to. If you do, make sure you review the two other maps referenced on the survey. There is no shortage of Lis Pendens in this neighborhood.

> Turns out that there is a survey recorded on the subject property filed under Pierce County Recording Number 201311125001.
I found that survey, and it's 2012 predecessor, on the DNR website with your help. Both surveys show 1 monument found - not described - and 4, the same 4, set. I'd say a certain surveyor may have some 'splainin to do.