## Facts

- ITT Rayonier, Inc. owned a lakeshore parcel in Clallam County, Washington, purchased in 1947, and continuously paid property taxes.
- Arthur Bell bought a houseboat in 1972 and moored it adjacent to ITT’s land on Lake Ozette.
- The disputed area was about one-half acre next to the moorage.
- Bell never purchased the disputed land, believed it was state-owned when he began using it, and made seasonal use of the site (spring through fall; occasional winter visits).
- Bell used the shore to secure his houseboat (cable/rope tied to trees) and constructed or maintained improvements associated with his use (e.g., small structures and facilities).
- Bell did not post “No Trespassing” signs, erect fencing, or mark boundaries, and testified he likely would not have objected if others camped or used the area.
- Other nearby users (including the Klock and Olesen families) also used the area for limited purposes, including outhouses.
- ITT sued to quiet title, eject Bell, and recover trespass damages; Bell counterclaimed to quiet title in himself by adverse possession.

## Issues

1. Whether Washington adverse possession law requires a subjectively good-faith “claim of right.”
2. Whether Bell’s use of the property was “exclusive” for the statutory period so as to satisfy the exclusivity element of adverse possession.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed judgment quieting title in ITT and rejecting Bell’s adverse possession claim.
- The court rejected the Court of Appeals’ alternative rationale that adverse possession requires a good-faith claim of right.
- The court held that Bell failed to establish exclusive possession because the property was used by others and Bell did not act to exclude them in a manner typical of an owner.

## Legal Principles

- Adverse possession in Washington does not require subjective good faith; “claim of right” is measured by objective conduct treating the land as one’s own.
- Exclusivity requires possession consistent with ownership and to the exclusion of others; absolute solitude is not required, but shared, permissive, or non-excluding use is insufficient.
- Objective indicia of ownership (such as fencing, posting, boundary marking, and actions that actually exclude others) are probative of exclusivity.
- On summary judgment, where the claimant’s evidence shows shared use and no effort to exclude others, the exclusivity element may fail as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court clarified that Washington adverse possession turns on outward acts rather than the possessor’s state of mind, but it denied Bell’s claim because his seasonal, informal, and non-excluding use—alongside use by others—did not satisfy the exclusivity requirement.


ITT Rayonier, Inc. v. Bell, 112 Wash. 2d 754, 774 P.2d 6 (Wash. 1989)