1. NAME OF THE CASE: Howard v.

Kunto
2. CITATION: Court of Appeals Washington, 1970
477 P.2d 210
3. PARTIES: Howard/Plaintiff/Appellee
Kunto/Defendant/Appellant
4. OBJECTIVES: Howard sought to assert his ownership of the real estate. Kunto sought to
avoid giving up possession.
5. LEGAL THEORIES: ● Howard brought suit to quiet title and to assert his ownership of the real
estate occupied by Kunto.
● Kunto contended that although he had been in possession of the land less
than one year, he and his successors had been living on the property for
longer than the 10 year statutory period and he therefore acquired the
land through adverse possession by tacking.
6. PROCEDERAL ● The trial court entered judgment for Howard, holding that the actual
HISTORY: transfer of possession is insufficient to establish privity when the deed
does not describe any of the land occupied. Kunto appealed.
7. LOWER CT. ERROR: Trial court’s denial of claim is on the top of page 144.
8. FACTS: ● Several owners of property in a summer resort destination discovered that
the land they occupied did not match their deeds (see diagram).
● Howard owned the deed to the property occupied by Moyer and Moyer
held the deed to the property owned by Kunto.
● Howard and Moyer traded deeds giving Moyer the correct deed and
Howard the deed to the land occupied by Kunto.
9. ISSUE: 1. May a party prevail on a claim of adverse possession if physical use of
the property was limited to summer occupancy?
● Yes. A party may prevail on a claim of adverse possession if
physical use of the property was limited to summer occupancy.
2. Is tacking of possession by subsequent occupants permitted if the land is
occupied under a mistake of fact?
● Yes. Tacking of possession by subsequent occupants is permitted
if the land is occupied under a mistake of fact provided the
occupants are in privity.
10. HOLDING: See above.
11. JUDGEMENT: Reversed with directions to dismiss Ps action and to enter a decree quieting
D’s title to the disputed tract of land in accordance with the prayer of their
cross- complaint.
12. REASONING: 1. Issue #1
● The court began by quoting the rule of adverse possession “there must be
actual possession which is uninterrupted, open and notorious, hostile and
exclusive, and under claim of right made in good faith for the statutory
period.”
● The court rejected the conclusion that summer occupancy only of a
summer beach home destroys the community of possession required by
the statute.
● The hold that the occupancy of tract B during the summer months for
more than the 10 year period by the D and his predecessors, together with
the continued existence of the improvements on the land and beach area,
constituted “uninterrupted” possession within this rule. To hold
 otherwise is to completely ignore the statute.
2. Issue #2
- The court found the requirement of “pivity” is no more than judicial
recognition of the need for some reasonable connection between successive
occupants of real property so as to raise their claim of right above the status
of the wrongdoer or the trespasser. They think that such a reasonable
connection exists in this case.
-There is sufficient privity of estate to permit tracking and thus establish
adverse possession as a matter of law.
13. COMMENTS: