Amy C. Garling v. Mark Muldaur And Diane A. Sutherland, 74707-0

Garling (Lot 7) and Muldaur & Sutherland (Lot 6) share a narrow driveway; a visible concrete seam, a concrete pad, and a chain‑link fence post run roughly along the parties' perceived division.
Prior owners (Huston, then King) treated the seam/fencepost/pad as the boundary; King built a wooden fence north of the post and used the yard accordingly.
A survey after Garling bought Lot 7 showed the true platted boundary lay south of the seam/fencepost, creating a 114 sq ft disputed strip.
Garling sued to quiet title to the disputed strip; defendants counterclaimed to quiet title based on adverse possession and mutual recognition/acquiescence.
The trial court quieted title to defendants on both theories and awarded a penumbra (a surrounding strip) necessary to continue parking use along the seam; Garling appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether boundary established by mutual recognition & acquiescence	Garling: no certain, well‑defined boundary; predecessors did not accept the line as boundary	Defs: seam/pad/fencepost formed a visible line that predecessors consistently treated as the boundary for >10 years	Court: sustained; elements satisfied — visible line, mutual recognition by acts, continued for 10 years; title quieted for defendants
Whether adverse possession established	Garling: defendants failed to prove adverse possession (challenged factual findings)	Defs: alternate theory; prior possession and use supported title by adverse possession	Court: unnecessary to decide because mutual acquiescence alone supports judgment; adverse possession not addressed further
Whether court could quiet title to a penumbra around the seam for parking use	Garling: no Washington authority supports such a penumbra; order is vague and burdensome	Defs: historic parking use required small surrounding area for ingress/egress and to avoid obstruction	Court: affirmed — penumbra reasonable and necessary to preserve historic parking use; trial court may project a usable boundary line

Merriman v. Cokely, 168 Wn.2d 627 (recognizes 10‑year period and standard for mutual recognition/acquiescence)
Lamm v. McTighe, 72 Wn.2d 587 (establishes mutual recognition and acquiescence doctrine for boundaries)
Lilly v. Lynch, 88 Wn. App. 306 (details acts/occupancy standard to show recognition vs. mere barrier)
Lloyd v. Montecucco, 83 Wn. App. 846 (approves creating a penumbra/straightened line where necessary to settle an irregular possession boundary)
Shelton v. Strickland, 106 Wn. App. 45 (recognizes reasonable surrounding territory can be awarded with adverse possession for practical use)
In re Marriage of Schweitzer, 132 Wn.2d 318 (clarifies appellate review standard when burden is clear, cogent, and convincing)
Ladenburg v. Campbell, 56 Wn. App. 701 (court may affirm on any ground supported by evidence)