Varrelman v. Blount
| Decision Date | 12 May 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 34934,34934 |
| Citation | 56 Wn.2d 211,351 P.2d 1039 |
| Parties | Adolph J. VARRELMAN, Appellant, v. G. M. BLOUNT and Winifred S. Blount, his wife, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
John Hancock, Okanogan, for appellant.
Jack Doty, Brewster, for respondents.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment that dismisses his complaint with prejudice and quiets title to the disputed property in defendants in whom record title stands.
The trial court stated in its memorandum opinion:
The trial court found, upon conflicting testimony, that the disputed property
'* * * is located in country that is broken, mountainous, and very sparsely settled; and that [the] disputed area is very much in its natural state, being covered with underbrush and Ponderosa pine trees.'
Plaintiff has assigned error to all findings of the trial court that involve disputed issues of fact. A study of the record and of the photographic exhibits convinces us that there was ample evidence to support every finding of fact made by the trial court, and to support its conclusion that plaintiff failed to sustain the burden of proof necessary to establish his alleged claim of title by adverse possession.
This court cannot retry factual cases. Gilbert v. Rogers, Wash.1960, 351 P.2d 535, and cases cited.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Brunetto
... ... preponderance of evidence. Teel v. Stading, 155 ... Wn.App. 390, 394, 228 P.3d 1293 (2010) (citing Varrelman ... v. Blount, 56 Wn.2d 211, 211-12, 351 P.2d 1039 (1960)) ... An ... adverse possessor's dominion over the land must be ... ...
-
Thomas v. Brunetto
...element is a preponderance of evidence. Teel v. Stading, 155 Wn. App. 390, 394, 228 P.3d 1293 (2010) (citing Varrelman v. Blount, 56 Wn.2d 211, 211-12, 351 P.2d 1039 (1960)). An adverse possessor's dominion over the land must be as exclusive as the community would expect of an ordinary titl......
-
Teel v. STADING
...(1984). The party claiming adverse possession must establish each element by a preponderance of the evidence.3 Varrelman v. Blount, 56 Wash.2d 211, 211-12, 351 P.2d 1039 (1960). Permission, express or implied, from the true owner negates the hostility element because permissive use is incon......
-
Draszt v. Naccarato
...Ms. Draszt's argument. First, adverse possession requires only a showing to the preponderance of the evidence. Varrelman v. Blount, 56 Wash.2d 211, 211-12, 351 P.2d 1039 (1960). And we have already concluded that the Naccaratos have met the necessary elements to prove adverse possession. Se......