Also known as: open and notorious · open notorious possession
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A requirement for adverse possession or a prescriptive easement consisting of possession or use that is visible and apparent to a reasonable owner so that the true owner or an agent visiting the premises might readily see that rights are being invaded.
Pinecrest Builders erected fences six feet beyond the true boundary onto Summit Development land based on a mistaken plat. Successive townhome buyers mowed, gardened, and maintained patios in the strips. The permanent fences and visible improvements remained in place year-round. Summit later demanded removal after more than ten years.
Gilbert rented his cabin and included a disputed beach strip in each lease under a good-faith boundary belief. Successive tenants used the beach each summer for recreation while the fence line stayed visible. Victoria sued to quiet title after decades of summer use.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Silver Logistics paved portions of Flora's unused rail yard, stored containers, posted signs, and conducted daily loading visible from the public road. Flora never monitored the parcel. Cecil later sought to eject Silver Logistics after Flora's death.
Frontier Fiber erected a perimeter fence and towers on Arthur's site, posted signs, and operated openly for fifteen years while paying annual fees. Jane had no notice during Arthur's life. Jane sued after Arthur died.
Peak Drug built laboratory buildings and security fencing on Carol's land under an oral arrangement. The fenced compound operated continuously and visibly for decades. Christopher sued after Carol died.
Johnson Partnership predecessors expanded a hedgerow and irrigation ditch onto Beth's strip, planted crops, grazed cattle, and erected a shed under a good-faith mistaken survey stake. The visible improvements continued through successive owners for decades until a new survey.
The use must be visible and apparent so that a reasonable owner visiting the premises would readily notice the invasion of rights. Fences, structures, and regular activity that signal exclusive control satisfy the element.
Supporting sources
Yes when the seasonal pattern matches how an average owner would use that type of land. Summer recreation on a beach with a visible fence line provides the required notice.
Supporting sources
Yes. Successive owners who each believe they own the strip may add their periods together to meet the statutory requirement. The open and notorious character of the use continues across the transfers.
Supporting sources
Yes. When the owner sees the visible improvements and ongoing activity, the element is met even without formal notice.
Supporting sources
…with the oft-quoted rule that: [T]o constitute adverse possession, there must be actual possession which is uninterrupted , open and notorious, hostile and exclusive, and under a claim of right made in good faith for the statutory period. (Italics ours.) Butler v. Anderson , 71 Wn.2d 60, 64, 426 P.2d 467 (1967). Also see…